The Presidential Debates [Archive] - Page 12

View Full Version : The Presidential Debates

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17

Gilpesh

10-08-2008, 02:27 PM

Never-the-less...Obama has criticized McCain for "distraction issues." If he does the same he will be a filthy hypocrite.

Definitely. There might be a little swipe in the next debate if McCain starts to really try and get under Obama's skin and then says 'Senator Obama did this'... if Obama really wanted to put a little Springer in it (he probably won't) he would start his next statement with, "At least you remembered my name..."

But I don't think he would do that just to bring up the 'that one' remark. But then again... I didn't think McCain was going to look meh during a townhall debate.

redfirebird2008

10-08-2008, 02:27 PM

Never-the-less...Obama has criticized McCain for "distraction issues." If he does the same he will be a filthy hypocrite.

He's not doing the same. The media is doing it for him. And how in God's name you can compare a "spin room" talking point immediately following a debate with an actual campaign strategy (that being McCain's attempt to paint Obama as a terrorist) is laughable. The spin room is designed to do exactly that, spin the outcome of the debate. The debate was a boring one. The only gaffe in the entire thing was McCain's "THAT ONE" comment. Everything else about that debate was talking points from both sides, so pointing out the gaffe immediately following the debate is not what I would call a strategy. If you see Obama on the campaign trail doing what McCain and Palin are doing to him on the campaign trail, then you compare the two.

Matt

10-08-2008, 02:29 PM

He's not doing the same. The media is doing it for him. And how in God's name you can compare a "spin room" talking point immediately following a debate with an actual campaign strategy (that being McCain's attempt to paint Obama as a terrorist) is laughable. The spin room is designed to do exactly that, spin the outcome of the debate. The debate was a boring one. The only gaffe in the entire thing was McCain's "THAT ONE" comment. Everything else about that debate was talking points from both sides, so pointing out the gaffe immediately following the debate is not what I would call a strategy. If you see Obama on the campaign trail doing what McCain and Palin are doing to him on the campaign trail, then you compare the two.

Which is why I said IF he runs with it.

sinewave

10-08-2008, 02:30 PM

Never-the-less...Obama has criticized McCain for "distraction issues." If he does the same he will be a filthy hypocrite.

again, it sounds like you're foaming at the mouth for obama to buck his style and sink to mccain's level just so you can call him names. itchy trigger finger much?

jaguarr

10-08-2008, 02:31 PM

again, it sounds like you're foaming at the mouth for obama to buck his style and sink to mccain's level just so you can call him names. itchy trigger finger much?

I have to admit, I would have LOL'd if you turned up banned after this post. :funny:

jag

redfirebird2008

10-08-2008, 02:31 PM

Which is why I said IF he runs with it.

He's not going to. He didn't run with the "failure to look him in the eye" gaffe from the first debate, so he won't bother with this either. He'll keep doing what he's been doing: pretending to be Robin Hood. LOL.

sinewave

10-08-2008, 02:35 PM

I have to admit, I would have LOL'd if you turned up banned after this post. :funny:

jag

not me. i'd have laughed quietly to myself, then cried softly, then peed my pants in shame.

Motown Marvel

10-08-2008, 02:42 PM

And exactly HOW has Obama's campaign said that there was anything racial to it? If you can't even address a fellow senator by his last name, what the hell's going to happen when you refer to someone like Putin for instance by calling him "THAT ONE." McCain's campaign distorted Obama's words to make it about something he wasn't even talking about, namely Palin, and then took it even further and used the word "sexist" to describe the remarks. Obama's campaign merely pointed out that McCain acted like a jackass. If Obama was white, it'd be no different. McCain came across like a condescending hothead during that moment regardless of his opponent's skin color.

im not saying obama's campaign did make anything racial about it. but many people already have. im just saying, i HOPE obama's campaign DOESN'T go there, i hope they dont join in with the people who already have gone there, its unnecessary. i say that pre-emptively, im not saying they already have. and in fact, i hope they dont run with it at all. yes, it made mccain look like a jack ass. we know that. we all saw it. and the media is taking it far enough to remind people of it. all obama needs to do is keep sticking to the issues. they dont need to take any effort to make anything of it. because A) first and foremost,its a non-issue. and B) others outside of the obama campaign will do enough to push it. obama has criticized mccain for petty distractions. pushing this in any way will make obama guilty of the same.

Matt

10-08-2008, 02:49 PM

again, it sounds like you're foaming at the mouth for obama to buck his style and sink to mccain's level just so you can call him names. itchy trigger finger much?

Nah, he's already sunk to McCain's level in my opinion...well...maybe he's still a level above rock bottom, but he's pretty close. I just remember hearing some chatter on CNN last night about Obama releasing an ad about it so I thought I'd comment. Though it would be funny if he got that woman who does the voice overs for the McCain ads to say, "John McCain called Obama 'that one,'...how disrespectful."

I have to admit, I would have LOL'd if you turned up banned after this post. :funny:

jag

not me. i'd have laughed quietly to myself, then cried softly, then peed my pants in shame.

I could never ban sinewave (I'll just have Demogoblin do it for me :cwink:)

Fading

10-08-2008, 02:49 PM

Jesus...that was fast. LOL!

jag

LMAO, no kidding. I mean...printed shirts already? "That one"..."The one"...getting some Matrix-esque vibes here. Obama...take away the b...a...m..a...add a ne before the o...Neo...OMG McCain is one of the machines!

Seriously tho, I really hope this doesn't stick. 'That one' was rude, but nothing worth talking about for long. If I see ppl wearing these shirts in the street...and have to hear about it all week....:bh:

(First time using the Hulk smiley....I'm drunk with power):boba:

Edit -:lips: :facepalm: Mwahahaha....

sinewave

10-08-2008, 02:53 PM

Nah, he's already sunk to McCain's level in my opinion...well...maybe he's still a level above rock bottom, but he's pretty close. I just remember hearing some chatter on CNN last night about Obama releasing an ad about it so I thought I'd comment. Though it would be funny if he got that woman who does the voice overs for the McCain ads to say, "John McCain called Obama 'that one,'...how disrespectful."

eh, i don't see it happening. he's run this campaign like a finely tuned machine. all he has to do now is keep his mouth shut and coast to the finish line.

I could never ban sinewave (I'll just have Demogoblin do it for me :cwink:)

coward! :oldrazz:

Matt

10-08-2008, 02:55 PM

eh, i don't see it happening. he's run this campaign like a finely tuned machine. all he has to do now is keep his mouth shut and coast to the finish line.

I tend to agree. There is really no point in even wasting the money on such an ad (though you gotta admit "How disrespectful..." lady would be funny).

coward! :oldrazz:

Nah, just lazy :p

howigotmyscars

10-08-2008, 03:21 PM

Mccain is a pretentious fake. That is all.

Marx

10-08-2008, 03:39 PM

OBAMA SLAMS MCCAIN DEBATE RESPONSE
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/08/obama-slams-mccain-debate-response/

redfirebird2008

10-08-2008, 03:42 PM

OBAMA SLAMS MCCAIN DEBATE RESPONSE
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/08/obama-slams-mccain-debate-response/

This is a great line from Obama:

“I can take four more weeks of John McCain’s attacks, but the American people can’t take four more years of John McCain’s George Bush policies.”

Anita18

10-08-2008, 04:14 PM

OBAMA SLAMS MCCAIN DEBATE RESPONSE
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/08/obama-slams-mccain-debate-response/
:lmao: These headlines are so over-the-top.

That's not a "slam" to me. It's definitely a criticism, but it isn't like Obama went out and called McCain a douche.

jaguarr

10-08-2008, 04:16 PM

:lmao: These headlines are so over-the-top.

That's not a "slam" to me. It's definitely a criticism, but it isn't like Obama went out and called McCain a douche.

Nope. He sure didn't. I did! (http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=15788916&postcount=4471). :hehe:

jag

Chris Wallace

10-08-2008, 04:18 PM

He doesn't have to; we all know McCain's a douche. I like how Obama keeps tying McCain to Bush. McCain has no real defense there, b/c if he tries to distance himself from Bush too much, he looks like a major hypocrite & shoots himself in the foot by alienating the leader of his party. If he defends Bush, he looks like an idiot b/c we are all so sick of the Bush era.

DorkyFresh

10-08-2008, 04:20 PM

agreed, Chris....i think it's safe to say that McCain's worst enemy is not Obama, or even himself, but it's the guy who gave him his ticket into candidacy.

rdh007

10-08-2008, 04:24 PM

he's still a level above rock bottom, but he's pretty close.
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee144/rdh007/Rock-Bottom.jpg
Sorry, couldn't resist posting that.

Raiden

10-08-2008, 04:26 PM

agreed, Chris....i think it's safe to say that McCain's worst enemy, is not Obama or even himself, but it's the guy who gave him his ticket into candidacy.

McCain is still tied with Bush, by using people like Rove in his campaign and have Bush appear in his fundraisers. And McCain's plans are pretty much an extention of the Bush policies, anyway.

Goddessreicho

10-08-2008, 04:42 PM

My god, did McCain really say "My Friends" 22 times...I think my liver just cried real tears.

Can anyone post the gif of Biden, Obama, and Clinton in the jeep with the frappuccino doing the happy dance?

SentinelMind

10-08-2008, 04:52 PM

Well IMO 9/11 has become a catchphrase. Both Guilioni (spelled wrong I'm sure) and Bush used the phrase as part of their campaign. Personally I get tired of politicians on either side mentioning it. You don't use a tragedy to push your politics IMO.

I strongly disagree. 9/11 is a historical tragedy, and our leaders and histoirans should have the right and responsibility to discuss the historical implications of that event. That one event has shaped our foriegn policy, civil liberties issues, and economic security. I cringe more when I here critics, mostly leftists, kneejerkingly whines whenever someone mentions 9/11 than mentioning 9/11 itself. Should we never discuss slavery, segregation, Holocaust, apartheid, Pearl Harbor because it makes someone uncomfortable? These leaders are discussing policy to avert tragedies like that from happening again...you have to discuss eventually, although best in a respectful manner, obviously.

Anita18

10-08-2008, 05:03 PM

My god, did McCain really say "My Friends" 22 times...I think my liver just cried real tears.
Has someone pasted them all together in one clip and put it on YouTube yet? It would be so much more epic than Shia LeBeouf's "Nononono!" marathon in the Transformers mashup. :funny:

I strongly disagree. 9/11 is a historical tragedy, and our leaders and histoirans should have the right and responsibility to discuss the historical implications of that event. That one event has shaped our foriegn policy, civil liberties issues, and economic security. I cringe more when I here critics, mostly leftists, kneejerkingly whines whenever someone mentions 9/11 than mentioning 9/11 itself. Should we never discuss slavery, segregation, Holocaust, apartheid, Pearl Harbor because it makes someone uncomfortable? These leaders are discussing policy to avert tragedies like that from happening again...you have to discuss eventually, although best in a respectful manner, obviously.
It's too bad that Rudy Giuliani had to go and mention 9/11 every chance he could, cause now a mention of it is almost a joke. People just interpret it as fear-mongering, at this point.

Honey Vibe

10-08-2008, 06:00 PM

:lmao: These headlines are so over-the-top.

That's not a "slam" to me. It's definitely a criticism, but it isn't like Obama went out and called McCain a douche.
Well, they gotta get you to read it SOMEHOW ;)

Gilpesh

10-08-2008, 06:14 PM

Has someone pasted them all together in one clip and put it on YouTube yet?

vnPb9D6O-X0

Marx

10-09-2008, 12:28 AM

63.2 MILLION VIEWERS WATCH SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/presidential-debate-ratin_n_133120.html

Anita18

10-09-2008, 03:24 AM

vnPb9D6O-X0
Yesssssssssss! :woot:

Fading

10-09-2008, 05:18 AM

I strongly disagree. 9/11 is a historical tragedy, and our leaders and histoirans should have the right and responsibility...I cringe more when I here critics, mostly leftists, kneejeringly whines whenever someone mentions 9/11 than mentioning 9/11 itself...

Leftists?...

I'm sorry but I'm personally tired of a tragedy being used in campaign slogans, and as catchphrases. Every time Bush or Rudy had trouble in public opinion polls they'd pop out 9/11. When ppl questioned Bush's ability to fight terrorist he'd use fear speech, and again mention 9/11, all while convincing the crowd that only he could stop a repeat.

Do currently politicians say, "We need to stop ethnic cleansing in Darfur or it will be like holocaust ethnic cleansings!!!". No...of course not because it's not fresh in ppl's minds. If you scare them with the threat of a recent attack tho you get them to listen, and vote for you because they believe it will happen again and only x politician can protect them.

Fading

10-09-2008, 05:23 AM

Sidenote, why did you even mention left? We were complaining about Obama saying it, and joked that he must have taken it from Rudy's speech. Personally, I don't care which side uses it, a tragedy belongs to no one politician, and shouldn't be used to up polls. I think that's why ppl are so harsh on Bush and Rudy about it, they both used it for that purpose.

Edit - I'm not saying ppl shouldn't mention it at all btw. I'm just against it being intertwined with a politician's tag line. Or to emphasize why they can protect the country and the other guy can't. I'm not over sensative about it, but I'm not fond of politician's using tragedies to brag about themselves either.

Gilpesh

10-09-2008, 07:01 AM

Fading

10-09-2008, 08:02 AM

Actually, the way Obama used it... it wasn't the usual fear mongering that the right does when they bring it up. Obama was talking about how all Americans wanted to come together to do whatever it took to make our country better and succeed... and Bush just said, "Go shop".

But on the other hand, whenever Rudy brought it up or Bush, it was always like they were telling you, "TERRORISTS ARE COMING AND THEY'RE GONNA GET YOU, unless I stop them."

I agree, Obama's statement was more along the lines of post 9/11 how Bush blew a great opportunity. That when patriotism was at a high it hasn't been in decades, when everyone was feeling together, reaching out to help neighbors, etc, that his big message was, "Spend, spend, spend". I agree with Obama that it was a waste.

In fact I'm not sure why I talked on it so much. It started out with a joke from someone about Obama stealing a bit of Rudy's speech. Either way I'll drop it. I just wanted to make myself extra clear on the subject.

Gilpesh

10-09-2008, 08:04 AM

In fact I'm not sure why I talked on it so much.

I was just airing my opinion on the matter... not saying it only to you. :oldrazz:

Fading

10-09-2008, 08:10 AM

I was just airing my opinion on the matter... not saying it only to you. :oldrazz:

I know....I have no clue who is in your avatar, but while responding to you it made me feel bad. Like I somehow offended that man and the boobs behind him :(. Actually I'm in a great mood, and not feeling argumentative at all heh.

Gilpesh

10-09-2008, 09:15 AM

I know....I have no clue who is in your avatar, but while responding to you it made me feel bad. Like I somehow offended that man and the boobs behind him :(. Actually I'm in a great mood, and not feeling argumentative at all heh.

Me as well. And I again was just explaining how I think Obama's is from a place of inspiring the American people to do better... Bush and the right seem to use it more for keeping the American people in line.

And that man is Frank Reynolds... and I want him to be president.

Matt

10-09-2008, 10:23 AM

Anita18

10-09-2008, 10:38 AM

I had a crazy thought the other day watching the bizarre event at the end where McCain taps Obama's shoulder and tells him it was Cindy. Is it possible, that he was trying to make it look like Obama snubbed him? Cause following his pointing him to Cindy, he extends his hand to Obama then acts like he was snubbed. Did he hope to create a similiar back fire like his refusal to look Obama in the eyes? Could McCain really be that stupid to think something like that would work?
It didn't look like that. It looked like he was trying to make a joke about tapping Obama like that, but it didn't work mostly because his movements were fairly stunted, as they were the entire debate. He didn't make like, "OMG this guy didn't shake hands with me!"

Which would have been hilarious, actually. :lmao:

I'm more :o that Cindy McCain put her hands behind her back and looked so FORMAL trying to talk with the audience members after shaking hands with Obama.

Raiden

10-09-2008, 10:41 AM

jaguarr

10-09-2008, 10:45 AM

jaguarr

10-09-2008, 10:46 AM

It didn't look like that. It looked like he was trying to make a joke about tapping Obama like that, but it didn't work mostly because his movements were fairly stunted, as they were the entire debate. He didn't make like, "OMG this guy didn't shake hands with me!"

Which would have been hilarious, actually. :lmao:

I'm more :o that Cindy McCain put her hands behind her back and looked so FORMAL trying to talk with the audience members after shaking hands with Obama.

Well, in Cindy's defense she DID just get forced to touch a black person and probably didn't want to touch anyone else until she'd had a chance to wash her hands. :o

jag

Anita18

10-09-2008, 11:01 AM

I hope someone would put that on Youtube so we can see the absurbity of McCain pretending that it was Cindy who tapped Obama on the shoulders.
That's how I saw it, because I didn't see the debate.

WI0iIOqPGak

It was just odd, it wasn't an all-and-out gaffe like, "that one."

Raiden

10-09-2008, 11:18 AM

That's how I saw it, because I didn't see the debate.

WI0iIOqPGak

It was just odd, it wasn't an all-and-out gaffe like, "that one."

Thanks for the YT vid. It does seemed very transparent about the way McCain tapped Obama on the shoulders, then pretending that it was his wife who did it then tried to appear like he was offering his hand for handshake and got "denied" by Obama. McCain didn't sell it very well and it really backfired on him since only the most brainwashed O'reilly and Limbaugh fans won't have seen it for what it really is.

Marx

10-09-2008, 11:21 AM

The Senator

10-09-2008, 11:37 AM

It didn't look like that. It looked like he was trying to make a joke about tapping Obama like that, but it didn't work mostly because his movements were fairly stunted, as they were the entire debate. He didn't make like, "OMG this guy didn't shake hands with me!"

Which would have been hilarious, actually. :lmao:

I'm more :o that Cindy McCain put her hands behind her back and looked so FORMAL trying to talk with the audience members after shaking hands with Obama.

Can you blame her? She just shook hands with a terrorist; she wouldn't want to pass the terrorist disease by shaking all the audience members' hands.

Matt

10-09-2008, 08:41 PM

The SNL thursday night special's lampoon of the debate was really disappointing. Can we please just have 30 Rock back (or at least just 30 minutes of Tina Fey doing the Palin impression)?

Gilpesh

10-09-2008, 09:03 PM

jaguarr

10-09-2008, 09:45 PM

The SNL thursday night special's lampoon of the debate was really disappointing. Can we please just have 30 Rock back (or at least just 30 minutes of Tina Fey doing the Palin impression)?

Did Palin show up? There were rumors floating around that she was going to appear and do an impression of Fey tonight. I really think it's a mistake for her to even consider it, because it will surely just get her more negative attention from SNL and Fey in the future, but I've read a lot of different stories about how she really wants to do it.

jag

Malice

10-09-2008, 09:54 PM

The SNL thursday night special's lampoon of the debate was really disappointing. Can we please just have 30 Rock back (or at least just 30 minutes of Tina Fey doing the Palin impression)?

i loved it

Chris Wallace

10-09-2008, 10:19 PM

But Fey didn't really have to do much. She barely changed anything. It's like she was saying "Sarah sounds so stupid on her won, I'm just gonna portray her as she is. People will laugh b/c in absence of political authority, stupid remarks are to be laughed at"

imdaly

10-09-2008, 10:27 PM

That's how I saw it, because I didn't see the debate.

WI0iIOqPGak

It was just odd, it wasn't an all-and-out gaffe like, "that one."

That's very odd.

Do we have this from a behind-the-back angle? Did he tap him on the shoulder or did he pat him on the back? Looks to me like a pat on the back, which wouldn't really be odd like a tap would be.

Matt

10-09-2008, 10:48 PM

That's very odd.

Do we have this from a behind-the-back angle? Did he tap him on the shoulder or did he pat him on the back? Looks to me like a pat on the back, which wouldn't really be odd like a tap would be.

It was definitly a tap. Why the hell would he point at Cindy and try to blame it on her? I honestly think he was trying to act as if Obama snubbed him to create some kind of media circus...in which case, WTF? Surely he knew cameras were everywhere and it would never fly. In what has been the strangest election I've ever seen, this stands out as the most bizarre moment to me.

imdaly

10-09-2008, 10:53 PM

It was definitly a tap. Why the hell would he point at Cindy and try to blame it on her? I honestly think he was trying to act as if Obama snubbed him to create some kind of media circus...in which case, WTF? Surely he knew cameras were everywhere and it would never fly. In what has been the strangest election I've ever seen, this stands out as the most bizarre moment to me.

Could it not be a pat on the back, to which Obama turns around to see who it was, and McCain motions for Obama to shake his wife's hand first before shanking his?

I'm not trying to defend him, but the camera angle makes the whole thing look so odd I'm trying to figure out exactly what happened.

I don't see it as him playing the tap-you-on-the-back-and-blame-it-on-somebody-else game that 10-year-olds play on each other, especially when he knows he's being watched by, well, all of the world right then.

A camera angle from behind to show exactly if it was a tap or a pat would definitely help.

Matt

10-09-2008, 10:58 PM

Could it not be a pat on the back, to which Obama turns around to see who it was, and McCain motions for Obama to shake his wife's hand first before shanking his?

I'm not trying to defend him, but the camera angle makes the whole thing look so odd I'm trying to figure out exactly what happened.

I don't see it as him playing the tap-you-on-the-back-and-blame-it-on-somebody-else game that 10-year-olds play on each other, especially when he knows he's being watched by, well, all of the world right then.

A camera angle from behind to show exactly if it was a tap or a pat would definitely help.

But after he points him to Cindy, he sticks out his hand and acts like he wanted to shake. Its just so very odd.

imdaly

10-09-2008, 11:01 PM

It's definitely odd.

Exploding Boy

10-09-2008, 11:08 PM

That's how I saw it, because I didn't see the debate.

WI0iIOqPGak

It was just odd, it wasn't an all-and-out gaffe like, "that one."
It looks like McCain tapped Obama pretending to be Cindy. Because he tapped Obama's back on the far side, where Cindy was. Thinking that Obama would turn in the other direction and see Cindy.

imdaly

10-09-2008, 11:13 PM

I still say it looks like a heavy pat on the back.

Seriously, where's the other camera angles? lol

jaguarr

10-09-2008, 11:22 PM

But after he points him to Cindy, he sticks out his hand and acts like he wanted to shake. Its just so very odd.

McCain is stone cold crazy, ya know.

jag

Exploding Boy

10-09-2008, 11:33 PM

I still say it looks like a heavy pat on the back.

Seriously, where's the other camera angles? lol
Well the narrators said it was a tap..maybe they had a better view

DorkyFresh

10-09-2008, 11:35 PM

i think McCain just has problems shaking hands when his wife is around. remember this?

6wD0Gf9w5DA

imdaly

10-09-2008, 11:38 PM

lol. I'd imagine after so long of being in the public as a well-known figure you probably develop an instict to automatically stick out your hand for a handshake anytime you see someone right in front of you lol.

Well the narrators said it was a tap..maybe they had a better view

Ah. I'm at work and have no sound so I don't have any audio to listen to, just the video.

Chris Wallace

10-10-2008, 02:18 AM

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i283/ghostofjealousy/Obama-1.gif

rdh007

10-10-2008, 09:51 AM

StrainedEyes

10-10-2008, 12:42 PM

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i283/ghostofjealousy/Obama-1.gif

:up:

Raiden

10-10-2008, 12:44 PM

But after he points him to Cindy, he sticks out his hand and acts like he wanted to shake. Its just so very odd.

Yes, and before Obama finished shaking Cindy's hand, McCain put his hand down with a funny look on his face. It is as if he just pretends to want to shake Obama's hand, but got "snubbed".

Chris Wallace

10-12-2008, 12:19 AM

McCain is stone cold crazy, ya know.

jagAnd that's his good point.

CaptainClown

10-12-2008, 12:29 AM

If I wanted a crazy old man I would have gotten Mike Gravel.

The Senator

10-12-2008, 12:40 AM

If I wanted a crazy old man I would have gotten Mike Gravel.

And since he's from Alaska, we could kill two crazy birds with one old stone!

ShadowBoxing

10-12-2008, 12:42 AM

And since he's from Alaska, we could kill two crazy birds with one old stone!
He knows something about stones
0rZdAB4V_j8
You die seven days after watching this.

CaptainClown

10-12-2008, 12:42 AM

And since he's from Alaska, we could kill two crazy birds with one old stone!
seems like thats where they spawn from. At least we narrowed it down.

DBella

10-12-2008, 04:10 AM

Corey

10-12-2008, 08:07 AM

WI0iIOqPGak

I too think that McCain was trying for a joke--almost in an effort to break the tension between the two after having just fought in the debate; an almost, "we're still cool" moment after simmering down. I don't know, I could be wrong, but that's just my immediate impression from watching the handshake. To be honest, I thought it was meant to be somewhat endearing, and John McCain actually seems likeable in that clip. It's something I wish he would show more of. If you watch Obama's face when he turns around, with McCain grinning like an idiot, it's like you can see that "playfulness" is the last thing in the world that he expected from John at that point.

Marx

10-12-2008, 03:51 PM

I am not sure if this question has been raised but I've been wondering, why don't Presidential Debates include the Independent Candidate who's running for President? I am sick of this... 2-party monopoly. I'd like to hear what the Independent candidate has to offer us. Don't we deserve more choices other than Republican or Democratic candidates? :csad:

I think you have to meet a certain percentage of public support before you can be included into the debates. I'm not sure though, it's been a while since I've read about that.

Marx

10-13-2008, 12:24 AM

DEBATE COACHES: 'LOST' MCCAIN MUST 'UP GAME'
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14510.html

redfirebird2008

10-13-2008, 12:33 AM

souvlaki

10-13-2008, 12:39 AM

DEBATE COACHES: 'LOST' MCCAIN MUST 'UP GAME'
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14510.html

I read that earlier. Personally I don't buy it. I think the McCain campaign is just trying to seriously lower expectations.

souvlaki

10-13-2008, 12:42 AM

I am not sure if this question has been raised but I've been wondering, why don't Presidential Debates include the Independent Candidate who's running for President? I am sick of this... 2-party monopoly. I'd like to hear what the Independent candidate has to offer us. Don't we deserve more choices other than Republican or Democratic candidates? :csad:

I believe that independent candidates have to receive at least 10% in a major national poll in order to be eligible to attend a Presidential debate. Hence Ross Perot being at the 1992 Presidential debate.

Motown Marvel

10-13-2008, 08:51 PM

sometimes things that are wrong in principal....are still really funny...

http://imagebot.org/debate.jpg

CaptainClown

10-13-2008, 08:53 PM

so wrong.

redfirebird2008

10-13-2008, 08:54 PM

sometimes things that are wrong in principal....are still really funny...

http://imagebot.org/debate.jpg

:hehe::hehe::hehe:

rdh007

10-13-2008, 08:56 PM

So very wrong. But since McCain made that awful joke about Chelsea back in the day, I'm alright with it.

redfirebird2008

10-13-2008, 09:09 PM

Marx

10-13-2008, 09:17 PM

So uhhhhh perhaps McCain will actually look Obama in the eye and spout these terrorist talking points at him. The debate format this time around is for both to be seated at a table. Kind of hard to not look him in the eye at least...and if he's a man of his word to his supporters, he will bring up the guilt-by-association charges that he is currently running in ads across the country.

And if McCain does that, I will be waiting very anxiously for Obama to bring up the fact that the founder of the board in which Ayers and Obama served together is now endorsing McCain. (An endorsement that McCain hasn't been quiet about at all.)

Gilpesh

10-13-2008, 09:18 PM

sometimes things that are wrong in principal....are still really funny...

http://imagebot.org/debate.jpg

I laughed... just like I laughed at the Janet Reno joke...

The Senator

10-13-2008, 09:42 PM

I am not sure if this question has been raised but I've been wondering, why don't Presidential Debates include the Independent Candidate who's running for President? I am sick of this... 2-party monopoly. I'd like to hear what the Independent candidate has to offer us. Don't we deserve more choices other than Republican or Democratic candidates? :csad:

Independent or third-party candidates have to poll at least at 15% in order to attend a presidential debate. Otherwise, the stage would be filled with irrelevant whack jobs such as Cynthia McKinney, Alan Keyes and Chuck Baldwin.

bunk

10-13-2008, 09:45 PM

The pundits seem to be pretty sure Schieffer will specifically ask about the Ayers connection. But they also were sure it would come up in the last one too.

Fading

10-13-2008, 09:50 PM

sometimes things that are wrong in principal....are still really funny...

http://imagebot.org/debate.jpg

LOL. Nothing else to add.

Lightning Strykez!

10-13-2008, 10:33 PM

So uhhhhh perhaps McCain will actually look Obama in the eye and spout these terrorist talking points at him. The debate format this time around is for both to be seated at a table. Kind of hard to not look him in the eye at least...and if he's a man of his word to his supporters, he will bring up the guilt-by-association charges that he is currently running in ads across the country.

I honestly don't believe he is going to "go there". John McCain should know by now that to do so might win the battle, but he'll lose the war. And he's a fool if he believes otherwise.

Going up against a young, charismatic polititian like Obama will only make him look like a Dark Sith Lord Emperor attempting a Jedi Mind Trick on Luke Skywalker.

Gilpesh

10-13-2008, 10:39 PM

Actually... McCain goes there in a debate, Obama will probably (for once) completely (maybe) debunk the whole Ayers thing on national television in front of a large audience and then if McCain tries to bring it up again, it will look bad.

So Obama may not be able to debunk the Ayers thing, but the problem is, there is a chance that he could do it... then McCain might have to talk the issues.

The Senator

10-13-2008, 10:45 PM

McCain has so much to do to turn things in his favor in the final debate. I'm not sure he can do it, based on his past two performances.

Marx

10-13-2008, 10:55 PM

The pundits seem to be pretty sure Schieffer will specifically ask about the Ayers connection. But they also were sure it would come up in the last one too.

People don't care about Ayers! All of these negative attacks by the McCain campaign have backfired! People care about the economy. And besides that, how many more freakin' times does Obama have to explain the whole situation?

Corey

10-14-2008, 08:28 AM

As reported by guest Stanley Kurtz, on Fox News, about twenty five minutes ago:

October 14, 2008 4:00 AM

Wright 101
Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Rev. Wright’s anti-Americanism

By Stanley Kurtz

It looks like Jeremiah Wright was just the tip of the iceberg. Not only did Barack Obama savor Wright’s sermons, Obama gave legitimacy — and a whole lot of money — to education programs built around the same extremist anti-American ideology preached by Reverend Wright. And guess what? Bill Ayers is still palling around with the same bitterly anti-American Afrocentric ideologues that he and Obama were promoting a decade ago. All this is revealed by a bit of digging, combined with a careful study of documents from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the education foundation Obama and Ayers jointly led in the late 1990s.

John McCain, take note. Obama’s tie to Wright is no longer a purely personal question (if it ever was one) about one man’s choice of his pastor. The fact that Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Wright’s anti-Americanism means that this is now a matter of public policy, and therefore an entirely legitimate issue in this campaign.

African Village
In the winter of 1996, the Coalition for Improved Education in [Chicago’s] South Shore (CIESS) announced that it had received a $200,000 grant from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. That made CIESS an “external partner,” i.e. a community organization linked to a network of schools within the Chicago public system. This network, named the “South Shore African Village Collaborative” was thoroughly “Afrocentric” in orientation. CIESS’s job was to use a combination of teacher-training, curriculum advice, and community involvement to improve academic performance in the schools it worked with. CIESS would continue to receive large Annenberg grants throughout the 1990s.

The South Shore African Village Collaborative (SSAVC) was very much a part of the Afrocentric “rites of passage movement,” a fringe education crusade of the 1990s. SSAVC schools featured “African-Centered” curricula built around “rites of passage” ceremonies inspired by the puberty rites found in many African societies. In and of themselves, these ceremonies were harmless. Yet the philosophy that accompanied them was not. On the contrary, it was a carbon-copy of Jeremiah Wright’s worldview.

Rites of Passage
To learn what the rites of passage movement was all about, we can turn to a sympathetic 1992 study published in the Journal of Negro Education by Nsenga Warfield-Coppock. In that article, Warfield-Coppock bemoans the fact that public education in the United States is shaped by “capitalism, competitiveness, racism, sexism and oppression.” According to Warfield-Coppock, these American values “have confused African American people and oriented them toward American definitions of achievement and success and away from traditional African values.” American socialization has “proven to be dysfuntional and genocidal to the African American community,” Warfield-Coppock tells us. The answer is the adolescent rites of passage movement, designed “to provide African American youth with the cultural information and values they would need to counter the potentially detrimental effects of a Eurocentrically oriented society.”

The adolescent rites of passage movement that flowered in the 1990s grew out of the “cultural nationalist” or “Pan-African” thinking popular in radical black circles of the 1960s and 1970s. The attempt to create a virtually separate and intensely anti-American black social world began to take hold in the mid-1980s in small private schools, which carefully guarded the contents of their controversial curricula. Gradually, through external partners like CIESS, the movement spread to a few public schools. Supporters view these programs as “a social and cultural ‘inoculation’ process that facilitates healthy, African-centered development among African American youth and protects them against the ravages of a racist, sexist, capitalist, and oppressive society.”

We know that SSAVC was part of this movement, not only because their Annenberg proposals were filled with Afrocentric themes and references to “rites of passage,” but also because SSAVC’s faculty set up its African-centered curriculum in consultation with some of the most prominent leaders of the “rites of passage movement.” For example, a CIESS teacher conference sponsored a presentation on African-centered curricula by Jacob Carruthers, a particularly controversial Afrocentrist.

Jacob Carruthers
Like other leaders of the rites of passage movement, Carruthers teaches that the true birthplace of world civilization was ancient “Kemet” (Egypt), from which Kemetic philosophy supposedly spread to Africa as a whole. Carruthers and his colleagues believe that the values of Kemetic civilization are far superior to the isolating and oppressive, ancient Greek-based values of European and American civilization. Although academic Egyptologists and anthropologists strongly reject these historical claims, Carruthers dismisses critics as part of a white supremacist conspiracy to hide the truth of African superiority.

Carruthers’s key writings are collected in his book, Intellectual Warfare. Reading it is a wild, anti-American ride. In his book, we learn that Carruthers and his like-minded colleagues have formed an organization called the Association for the Study of Classical African Civilizations (ASCAC), which takes as its mission the need to “dismantle the European intellectual campaign to commit historicide against African peoples.” Carruthers includes “African-Americans” within a group he would define as simply “African.” When forced to describe a black person as “American,” Carruthers uses quotation marks, thus indicating that no black person can be American in any authentic sense. According to Carruthers, “The submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy.”

Carruthers’s goal is to use African-centered education to recreate a separatist universe within America, a kind of state-within-a-state. The rites of passage movement is central to the plan. Carruthers sees enemies on every part of the political spectrum, from conservatives, to liberals, to academic leftists, all of whom reject advocates of Kemetic civilization, like himself, as dangerous and academically irresponsible extremists. Carruthers sees all these groups as deluded captives of white supremacist Eurocentric culture. Therefore the only safe place for Africans living in the United States (i.e. American blacks) is outside the mental boundaries of our ineradicably racist Eurocentric civilization. As Carruthers puts it: “...some of us have chosen to reject the culture of our oppressors and recover our disrupted ancestral culture.” The rites of passage movement is a way to teach young Africans in the United States how to reject America and recover their authentic African heritage.

America as Rape
Carruthers admits that Africans living in America have already been shaped by Western culture, yet compares this Americanization process to rape: “We may not be able to get our virginity back after the rape, but we do not have to marry the rapist....” In other words, American blacks (i.e. Africans) may have been forcibly exposed to American culture, but that doesn’t mean they need to accept it. The better option, says Carruthers, is to separate out and relearn the wisdom of Africa’s original Kemetic culture, embodied in the teachings of the ancient wise man, Ptahhotep (an historical figure traditionally identified as the author of a Fifth Dynasty wisdom book). Anything less than re-Africanization threatens the mental, and even physical, genocide of Africans living in an ineradicably white supremacist United States.

Carruthers is a defender of Leonard Jeffries, professor in the department of black studies at City College in Harlem, infamous for his black supremacist and anti-Semitic views. Jeffries sees whites as oppressive and violent “ice people,” in contrast to peaceful and mutually supportive black “sun people.” The divergence says Jeffries, is attributable to differing levels of melanin in the skin. Jeffries also blames Jews for financing the slave trade. Carruthers defends Jeffries and excoriates the prestigious black academics Carruthers views as traitorous for denouncing their African brother, Jeffries. Carruthers’s vision of the superior and peaceful Kemetic philosophy of Ptahhotep triumphing over Greco-Euro-American-white culture obviously parallels Jeffries’ opposition between ice people and sun people.

More of Carruthers’s education philosophy can be found in his newsletter, The Kemetic Voice. In 1997, for example, at the same time Carruthers was advising SSAVC on how to set up an African-centered curriculum, he praised the decision of New Orleans’ School Board to remove the name of George Washington from an elementary school. Apparently, some officials in New Orleans had decided that nobody who held slaves should have a school named after him. Carruthers touted the name-change as proof that his African-centered perspective was finally having an effect on public policy. At the demise of George Washington School, Carruthers crowed: “These events remind us of how vast the gulf is that separates the Defenders of Western Civilization from the Champions of African Civilization.”

According to Chicago Annenberg Challenge records, Carruthers’s training session on African-centered curricula for SSAVC teachers was a huge hit: “As a consciousness raising session, it received rave reviews, and has prepared the way for the curriculum readiness survey....” These teacher-training workshops were directly funded by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Another sure sign of the ideological cast of SSAVC’s curriculum can be found in Annenberg documents noting that SSAVC students are taught the wisdom of Ptahhotep. Carruthers’s concerns about “menticide” and “genocide” at the hand of America’s white supremacist system seem to be echoed in an SSAVC document that says: “Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us.”

When Jeremiah Wright turned toward African-centered thinking in the late 1980s and early 1990s (the period when, attracted by Wright’s African themes, Barack Obama first became a church member), many prominent thinkers from Carruthers’s Association for the Study of Classical African Civilizations were invited to speak at Trinity United Church of Christ, Carruthers himself included. We hear echoes of Carruthers’s work in Wright’s distinction between “right brained” Africans and “left brained” Europeans, in Wright’s fears of U.S. government-sponsored genocide against American blacks, and in Wright’s embittered attacks on America’s indelibly white-supremacist history. In Wright’s Trumpet Newsmagazine, as in Carruthers’s own writings, blacks are often referred to as “Africans living in the diaspora” rather than as Americans.

Asa Hilliard
Chicago Annenberg Challenge records also indicate that SSAVC educators invited Asa Hilliard, a pioneer of African-centered curricula and a close colleague of Carruthers, to offer a keynote address at yet another Annenberg-funded teacher training session. Hilliard’s ties to Wright run still deeper than Carruthers’s. A close Wright mentor and friend, Hilliard died in 2007 while on a trip to Kemet (Egypt) with Wright and members of Wright’s congregation. Hillard was scheduled to deliver several lectures to the congregants, and to speak at a meeting of the Association for the Study of Classical African Civilization, which he co-founded with Carruthers and other “African-centered” scholars. On that last trip, Hilliard accepted an appointment to the board of Wright’s new elementary school, Kwame Nkrumah Academy. Speaking of the need for such a school, Wright had earlier said, “We need to educate our children to the reality of white supremacy.” (For more on Wright’s Afrocentric school, see “Jeremiah Wright’s ‘Trumpet.’”)

Wright delivered the eulogy at Hilliard’s memorial service, with prominent members of ASCAC in the audience. To commemorate Hilliard, a special, two-cover double issue of Wright’s Trumpet Newsmagazine was published, with a picture of Hilliard on one side, and a picture of Louis Farrakhan on the other (in celebration of a 2007 award Farrakhan received from Wright). In short, the ties between Wright and Hilliard could hardly have been closer. Clearly, then, Wright’s own educational philosophy was mirrored at the Annenberg-funded SSAVC, which sought out Hilliard’s and Carruthers’s counsel to construct its curriculum.

Perhaps inadvertently, Wright’s eulogy for Hilliard actually established the fringe nature of his favorite African-centered scholars. In his tribute, Wright stressed how intensely “white Egyptologists recoiled at the very notion of everything Asa taught.” As Wright himself made plain, it seems virtually impossible to find respectable scholars of any political stripe who approve of the extremist anti-American version of Afrocentrism promoted by Hilliard and Carruthers.

Ayers’s Pals
An important exception to the rule is Bill Ayers himself, who not only worked with Obama to fund groups like this at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, but who is still “palling around” with the same folks. Discretely waiting until after the election, Bill Ayers and his wife, and fellow former terrorist, Bernardine Dohrn plan to release a book in 2009 entitled Race Course Against White Supremacy. The book will be published by Third World Press, a press set up by Carruthers and other members of the ASCAC. Representatives of that press were prominently present for Wright’s eulogy at Asa Hilliard’s memorial service. Less than a decade ago, therefore, when it came to education issues, Barack Obama, Bill Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright were pretty much on the same page.

Obama’s Knowledge
Given the precedent of his earlier responses on Ayers and Wright, Obama might be inclined to deny personal knowledge of the educational philosophy he was so generously funding. Such a denial would not be convincing. For one thing, we have evidence that in 1995, the same year Obama assumed control of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, he publicly rejected “the unrealistic politics of integrationist assimilation,” a stance that clearly resonates with both Wright and Carruthers. (See “No Liberation.”)

And as noted, Wright had invited Carruthers, Hilliard, and like-minded thinkers to address his Trinity congregants. Wright likes to tick off his connections to these prominent Afrocentrists in sermons, and Obama would surely have heard of them. Reading over SSAVC’s Annenberg proposals, Obama could hardly be ignorant of what they were about. And if by some chance Obama overlooked Hilliard’s or Carruthers’s names, SSAVC’s proposals are filled with references to “rites of passage” and “Ptahhotep,” dead giveaways for the anti-American and separatist ideological concoction favored by SSAVC.

We know that Obama did read the proposals. Annenberg documents show him commenting on proposal quality. And especially after 1995, when concerns over self-dealing and conflicts of interest forced the Ayers-headed “Collaborative” to distance itself from monetary issues, all funding decisions fell to Obama and the board. Significantly, there was dissent within the board. One business leader and experienced grant-smith characterized the quality of most Annenberg proposals as “awful.” (See “The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: The First Three Years,” p. 19.) Yet Obama and his very small and divided board kept the money flowing to ideologically extremist groups like the South Shore African Village Collaborative, instead of organizations focused on traditional educational achievement.

As if the content of SSAVC documents wasn’t warning enough, their proposals consistently misspelled “rites of passage” as “rights of passage,” hardly an encouraging sign from a group meant to improve children’s reading skills. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge’s own evaluators acknowledged that Annenberg-aided schools showed no improvement in achievement scores. Evaluators attributed that failure, in part, to the fact that many of Annenberg’s “external partners” had little educational expertise. A group that puts its efforts into Kwanzaa celebrations and half-baked history certainly fits that bill, and goes a long way toward explaining how Ayers and Obama managed to waste upwards of $150 million without improving student achievement.

However he may seek to deny it, all evidence points to the fact that, from his position as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama knowingly and persistently funded an educational project that shared the extremist and anti-American philosophy of Jeremiah Wright. The Wright affair was no fluke. It’s time for McCain to say so.

— Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTQ0YjhlOGVhYjQ0OWRhZjI2MmM4NTQ4NGM5Mjg0MzU=

As the election date draws near, and we're entering into the final leg of the presidential campaign, there seems to be a call for "tuning up" McCain's all but failed "guilty by association" tactic by many republicans and undeciders.

Now, many are saying that by pointing out Obama's connections in this way, (per the article) the accusations are no longer personal attacks, but extremely relevant political questions that should be addressed in the final debate--and may be the main refined tactic they use in the final three weeks to come.

Thoughts?

lazur

10-14-2008, 09:02 AM

As the election date draws near, and we're entering into the final leg of the presidential campaign, there seems to be a call for "tuning up" McCain's all but failed "guilty by association" tactic by many republicans and undeciders.

Now, many are saying that by pointing out Obama's connections in this way, (per the article) the accusations are no longer personal attacks, but extremely relevant political questions that should be addressed in the final debate--and may be the main refined tactic they use in the final three weeks to come.

Thoughts?

I think the issue of Wright is irrelevant. To be honest, I don't feel the media has any place inside a church, recording preachers in order to try and demonstrate extreme views. Who knows what context has been used against Wright. While I do believe his accusation that the U.S. is responsible for creating AIDS is completely over the top, I seriously doubt Obama feels the same way.

That said, I'm far more concerned about Obama's ties to the corruption of ACORN and Fannie and Freddie. That, in my opinion, is what McCain should be focused on. Obama touts his economic vision as being the best for the country, but there's a LOT scary about Democrats having not only the Presidency, but also a super-majority in the House and Senate, particularly when considering the unbridled corruption Democrats themselves created even with a Republican President. I can't imagine the level of corruption that would happen if Republicans aren't around to keep Democrats in check, and vice versa. Organizations like ACORN, and institutions like Fannie and Freddie, are what *caused* this economic mess, and they were enabled and empowered exclusively by Democrats, so how anyone believes that the Democrats who created this mess will somehow now fix it is beyond all logic. How much bigger will our financial messes become if Democrats are allowed unfettered and unchallenged manipulation of our country in this way?

souvlaki

10-14-2008, 09:04 AM

Now, many are saying that by pointing out Obama's connections in this way, (per the article) the accusations are no longer personal attacks, but extremely relevant political questions that should be addressed in the final debate--and may be the main refined tactic they use in the final three weeks to come.

Thoughts?

Those aren't relevant political questions, they are a sign of political desperation.

lazur

10-14-2008, 09:07 AM

Those aren't relevant political questions, they are a sign of political desperation.

BS. All people want is for Obama to explain his ties. You know? Why doesn't he just come out and address it? What is he hiding by not doing so?

There's NOTHING wrong with questioning the actions of a candidate that ultimately NO ONE KNOWS A THING ABOUT. He's brand new to the scene. It's not unreasonable to ask him and expect him to answer why he was associated with so many shady people and organizations.

Voters have the right to know.

souvlaki

10-14-2008, 09:09 AM

Since we are posting Fox News talking points, does anyone mind if I start posting articles from the Daily Kos? I mean, they are both biased and often times not factually based, usually based on nothing more than vague associations, or insinuations. I mean, it's only fair.

souvlaki

10-14-2008, 09:11 AM

BS. All people want is for Obama to explain his ties. You know? Why doesn't he just come out and address it? What is he hiding by not doing so?

There's NOTHING wrong with questioning the actions of a candidate that ultimately NO ONE KNOWS A THING ABOUT. He's brand new to the scene. It's not unreasonable to ask him and expect him to answer why he was associated with so many shady people and organizations.

Voters have the right to know.

Even when he does explain his ties you ignore it, or think he hasn't explained them enough. That's the problem. He has explained his ties to Rev. Wright. He has explained his ties to William Ayers. He has explained his ties to ACORN. And you still are not happy. It's a lose lose situation no matter what he says because you simply do not care. You've made your judgment on him and nothing he says is good enough for you.

CaptainClown

10-14-2008, 09:14 AM

souvlaki

10-14-2008, 09:15 AM

UA-Archangel

10-14-2008, 09:16 AM

Even when he does explain his ties you ignore it, or think he hasn't explained them enough. That's the problem. He has explained his ties to Rev. Wright. He has explained his ties to William Ayers. He has explained his ties to ACORN. And you still are not happy. It's a lose lose situation no matter what he says because you simply do not care. You've made your judgment on him and nothing he says is good enough for you.

With all due respect, when it's one name or organization after another that either has ties with organized crime or has committed massive fraud or is stoking huge race relation resentment, you have to wonder what you're going to get.

He may very well prove to be a good president or a disaster, nobody knows. However, is it really worth, for the sake of electing a Democrat or the first black president to overlook all of this?

You can comeback with the Keating thing on John McCain, but the official record was that he wasn't that deeply involved and he was censured over it.

lazur

10-14-2008, 09:19 AM

Also I find the notion that the guy has written two books about his life, gets non-stop media coverage, and has been running for President for well over a year yet lazur still feels no one knows a thing about him to be a pretty ridiculous claim.

What non-stop media coverage? Turn on any channel (other than Fox) or go to any mainstream news site (other than Fox) and all you hear are angels singing the guy's praise.

There are some significant unanswered questions that delve into this man's character. Americans have a right to have their questions answered. His refusing the answer them only stokes the fire. I mean, if he's sincere about 'change' and a new kind of politics, don't you think it would behoove him to be honest about these disturbing associations ... or does he just get a free pass because he's a Democrat?

What I find to be truly hypocritical and disgusting is that if McCain had been associated with Ayers and ACORN and Fannie and Freddie, you Democrats would be raking him over the coals about it. But since it's Obama, it's 'nothing to see here, move along.'

kainedamo

10-14-2008, 09:22 AM

What non-stop media coverage? Turn on any channel (other than Fox) or go to any mainstream news site (other than Fox) and all you hear are angels singing the guy's praise.

There are some significant unanswered questions that delve into this man's character. Americans have a right to have their questions answered. His refusing the answer them only stokes the fire. I mean, if he's sincere about 'change' and a new kind of politics, don't you think it would behoove him to be honest about these disturbing associations ... or does he just get a free pass because he's a Democrat?

What I find to be truly hypocritical and disgusting is that if McCain had been associated with Ayers and ACORN and Fannie and Freddie, you Democrats would be raking him over the coals about it. But since it's Obama, it's 'nothing to see here, move along.'

If you're still prattiling on about Ayers, Obama has answered those questions. Again and again. Months ago, too. And more recently in seperate tv interviews, including one with Bill O'Reilly.

lazur

10-14-2008, 09:23 AM

Ya, I have seen a bunch of responses by Obama on all those topics. I have no idea what people want.

Because his explanations are NON-EXPLANATIONS or LIES. Ayers was not just a guy who 'lived on his block.' He's insulting the American people by attempting to downplay and lie about his relationship to Ayers and ACORN, and also Fannie and Freddie.

This guy has a HISTORY of CLOSELY associating with corrupt organizations, and you're seriously going to fault people for wanting to know about it? You want people to just accept the guy at face value when his history reveals some pretty breathtaking questions?

Why do YOU trust this guy THAT MUCH? That's what I don't get...

CaptainClown

10-14-2008, 09:23 AM

Corey

10-14-2008, 09:23 AM

Those aren't relevant political questions, they are a sign of political desperation.

My first thought as well.

Since we are posting Fox News talking points, does anyone mind if I start posting articles from the Daily Kos? I mean, they are both biased and often times not factually based, usually based on nothing more than vague associations, or insinuations. I mean, it's only fair.

I didn't post the article because I believed it to be entirely factual, or coming from a balanced news source. I posted it, because it could be relevant, if McCain chooses this theme as one of his final tactics that will lead us into the election of the president. I found it interesting, and left my personal thoughts on the subject at the door for the moment.

So--as all of us should know--these days, something may not be completely factual or fair, but that is actually irrelevant in the scheme of things because it could still have an affect on "on the fence" voters in the fourth quarter.

The affect--if any at all--is what might be interesting.

CaptainClown

10-14-2008, 09:24 AM

Because his explanations are NON-EXPLANATIONS or LIES. Ayers was not just a guy who 'lived on his block.' He's insulting the American people by attempting to downplay and lie about his relationship to Ayers and ACORN, and also Fannie and Freddie.

This guy has a HISTORY of CLOSELY associating with corrupt organizations, and you're seriously going to fault people for wanting to know about it? You want people to just accept the guy at face value when his history reveals some pretty breathtaking questions?

Why do YOU trust this guy THAT MUCH? That's what I don't get...
you serious.... dude a bunch of people on here have answered these questions time and time again, you just don't like the answer.

lazur

10-14-2008, 09:25 AM

If you're still prattiling on about Ayers, Obama has answered those questions. Again and again. Months ago, too. And more recently in seperate tv interviews, including one with Bill O'Reilly.

BS, he did not answer why he was spending 50 million on behalf of Ayers to radicalize Chicago schools. He did not answer why he launched his career in Ayers' living room. He has not answered why he gave speeches along side the guy.

All he has said is that 'he was just a neighbor' which is complete BS and you know it.

souvlaki

10-14-2008, 09:25 AM

With all due respect, when it's one name or organization after another that either has ties with organized crime or has committed massive fraud or is stoking huge race relation resentment, you have to wonder what you're going to get.

He may very well prove to be a good president or a disaster, nobody knows. However, is it really worth, for the sake of electing a Democrat or the first black president to overlook all of this?

You can comeback with the Keating thing on John McCain, but the official record was that he wasn't that deeply involved and he was censured over it.

Or I can come back with Bill Clinton's associations. Or Nixon's associations. Or Bush's associations. Or Reagan's associations. Or Kennedy's associations. The fact of the matter is that anyone in politics is bound to have questionable ties. For that matter even your average person off the street is bound to have a shady acquaintance or two. Just because you've hung out with a few questionable people over a 40 year span does not mean that you yourself were involved in wrongdoing. And it certainly doesn't disqualify them from being a good President as history has clearly shown. It's nothing more than guilt by association until you prove that Obama planned terrorist attacks with William Ayers, or he talked crap on white people with Reverend Wright, or that he told ACORN to commit voter fraud. It's all speculation.

lazur

10-14-2008, 09:26 AM

Or I can come back with Bill Clinton's associations. Or Nixon's associations. Or Bush's associations. Or Reagan's associations. Or Kennedy's associations. The fact of the matter is that anyone in politics is bound to have questionable ties. For that matter even your average person off the street is bound to have a shady acquaintance or two. Just because you've hung out with a few questionable people over a 40 year span does not mean that you yourself were involved in wrongdoing. And it certainly doesn't disqualify them from being a good President as history has clearly shown. It's nothing more than guilt by association until you prove that Obama planned terrorist attacks with William Ayers, or he talked crap on white people with Reverend Wright, or that he told ACORN to commit voter fraud. It's all speculation.

Really? Who are McCain's questionable ties? And don't say Keating Five since he was found by a bipartisan investigation to have been innocent.

souvlaki

10-14-2008, 09:30 AM

BS, he did not answer why he was spending 50 million on behalf of Ayers to radicalize Chicago schools.

Um... you do know that that was a bi-partisan board, and that Annenberg (y'know, the co-creator of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge) is a McCain supporter right?

kainedamo

10-14-2008, 09:31 AM

BS, he did not answer why he was spending 50 million on behalf of Ayers to radicalize Chicago schools. He did not answer why he launched his career in Ayers' living room. He has not answered why he gave speeches along side the guy.

All he has said is that 'he was just a neighbor' which is complete BS and you know it.

Mods, can I insult lazur? No?

Ugh. Okay.

That's not all he's said on Ayers, lazur. You're just repeating party rhetoric. Very false party rhetoric.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html

Read that link. Please.

UA-Archangel

10-14-2008, 09:34 AM

Or I can come back with Bill Clinton's associations. Or Nixon's associations. Or Bush's associations. Or Reagan's associations. Or Kennedy's associations. The fact of the matter is that anyone in politics is bound to have questionable ties. For that matter even your average person off the street is bound to have a shady acquaintance or two. Just because you've hung out with a few questionable people over a 40 year span does not mean that you yourself were involved in wrongdoing. And it certainly doesn't disqualify them from being a good President as history has clearly shown. It's nothing more than guilt by association until you prove that Obama planned terrorist attacks with William Ayers, or he talked crap on white people with Reverend Wright, or that he told ACORN to commit voter fraud. It's all speculation.

It's one thing to have known them as a neighbour or a person who has associated with an organization, it's really a different thing when that particular person has been personally involved.

souvlaki

10-14-2008, 09:34 AM

Really? Who are McCain's questionable ties? And don't say Keating Five

Oh, okay... well since you said the Keating Five scandal is off the table then I guess it doesn't count. :whatever:

since he was found by a bipartisan investigation to have been innocent

You mean like the bipartisan investigation that said that Palin committed ethics violations? Speaking of which, she has plenty of shady ties. Would you like me to bring those up as well?

souvlaki

10-14-2008, 09:37 AM

It's one thing to have known them as a neighbour or a person who has associated with an organization, it's really a different thing when that particular person has been personally involved.

:huh: No offense but I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Did you just word this really badly? Personally involved in what?

lazur

10-14-2008, 09:39 AM

Mods, can I insult lazur? No?

Ugh. Okay.

That's not all he's said on Ayers, lazur. You're just repeating party rhetoric. Very false party rhetoric.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html

Read that link. Please.

I had already seen that interview. However, Obama did nothing short of downplay his relationship with the man. Factcheck also noted that Obama didn't deny getting some early political support from him.

So you're missing the point. The question he has not answered is WHY would he associate with this guy, and WHY would he WANT this guy to help him launch his political career?

As to the $50 million project, I could CARE LESS if some Republican was involved at some level. Ayers is a RADICAL with a RADICAL agenda, and Obama WORKED FOR HIM to help him realize that RADICAL agenda in Chicago's schools. THOSE are the questions he needs to answer.

lazur

10-14-2008, 09:45 AM

Oh, okay... well since you said the Keating Five scandal is off the table then I guess it doesn't count. :whatever:

You mean like the bipartisan investigation that said that Palin committed ethics violations? Speaking of which, she has plenty of shady ties. Would you like me to bring those up as well?

The Keating Five is the only thing you can come up with after 26 years in the House and Senate? Seriously? Yet for Obama, who's only been around for three years, we have ACORN, Ayers (and his wife, who is even more radical), Fannie and Freddie, Khalid Al-Mansour, Tony Rezko, the freaking list goes on and on...

Yep, we don't know this guy from Adam, but hey he's a great speaker and he 'sounds' honest, and HEY he's a Democrat, so let's give him our vote...

UA-Archangel

10-14-2008, 09:46 AM

:huh: No offense but I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Did you just word this really badly? Personally involved in what?

I don't know Obama's involvement with Acorn or Mac or Mae or some of the others, so it's not a political shot I'm taking when I say this.

If Obama's involvement was simply very peripheral, than it really wouldn't be much of anything. However, if he was involved elbow-deep, than it should be of a great concern. Assuming that it's all peripheral, you'd think that at least one MSM would do a major story on it showing just that. But the MSM seems to have no interest in showing just what kind of man Obama is. It seems that the fact that he could be the first African-American in office should cover all kinds of potential wrongs.

It does concern me, as a person who takes great interest in American politics and who believes that the president should be an individual who just about walks on water.

souvlaki

10-14-2008, 09:49 AM

Also, for the record, I really couldn't give two craps about either McCain's, or Palin's questionable ties, because like I said anyone involved in politics is going to eventually run across a few shady people. For me it's always been a tit for tat type thing with you guys because you all seem to care so much about vague associations, and people Obama has met over the years. To quote a wise man, "I'm not a schemer. I try to show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are."

I don't like McCain because I strongly disagree with him on several issues, and I quite frankly don't like the way he's run his campaign. And while Palin has hung out with a bunch of shady people in the past, I care about her record, her severe lack of experience, and the fact that she can barely string two sentences together. But since you guys insist on bringing up William Ayers, Rev. Wright, so on and so forth I will continue bringing up the Keating Five, and the Alaskan Independence Party. Personally, I'd rather just talk about the issues.

souvlaki

10-14-2008, 09:49 AM

Edit, double post.

kainedamo

10-14-2008, 09:50 AM

I had already seen that interview. However, Obama did nothing short of downplay his relationship with the man. Factcheck also noted that Obama didn't deny getting some early political support from him.

So you're missing the point. The question he has not answered is WHY would he associate with this guy, and WHY would he WANT this guy to help him launch his political career?

As to the $50 million project, I could CARE LESS if some Republican was involved at some level. Ayers is a RADICAL with a RADICAL agenda, and Obama WORKED FOR HIM to help him realize that RADICAL agenda in Chicago's schools. THOSE are the questions he needs to answer.

Do you even know what radical agenda you're talking about?

souvlaki

10-14-2008, 09:56 AM

I don't know Obama's involvement with Acorn or Mac or Mae or some of the others, so it's not a political shot I'm taking when I say this.

If Obama's involvement was simply very peripheral, than it really wouldn't be much of anything. However, if he was involved elbow-deep, than it should be of a great concern. Assuming that it's all peripheral, you'd think that at least one MSM would do a major story on it showing just that. But the MSM seems to have no interest in showing just what kind of man Obama is. It seems that the fact that he could be the first African-American in office should cover all kinds of potential wrongs.

It does concern me, as a person who takes great interest in American politics and who believes that the president should be an individual who just about walks on water.

A lot of those questions are answered on his "Fight the Smears" website. What is not mentioned there has probably been addressed at some point in an interview. The problem is those answers are not good enough for some people. When that happens all I can do is throw up my hands and say "to each his/her own". It's obvious at this point he can provide video documentation of every single one of his meetings with said questionable associations and it will never be enough for some people. Some people just wont vote for him because they simply don't like him... I just find the assertion that people don't know who Obama is to be ridiculous. He's been vetted far more than any Presidential candidate pre-1980 or so.

souvlaki

10-14-2008, 09:59 AM

The Keating Five is the only thing you can come up with after 26 years in the House and Senate? Seriously? Yet for Obama, who's only been around for three years, we have ACORN, Ayers (and his wife, who is even more radical), Fannie and Freddie, Khalid Al-Mansour, Tony Rezko, the freaking list goes on and on...

Yep, we don't know this guy from Adam, but hey he's a great speaker and he 'sounds' honest, and HEY he's a Democrat, so let's give him our vote...

I simply don't care. That's it. McCain could be screwing Satan for all I care, but if I thought he'd do a good job as President I'd vote for him. I dont. End of story. If someone else wants to field this question, have at it. I've personally never cared enough about McCain's personal life to find all the "dirt" on him that you have with Obama.

lazur

10-14-2008, 10:08 AM

I simply don't care. That's it. McCain could be screwing Satan for all I care, but if I thought he'd do a good job as President I'd vote for him. I dont. End of story. If someone else wants to field this question, have at it. I've personally never cared enough about McCain's personal life to find all the "dirt" on him that you have with Obama.

Fail. None of the associations I mentioned (except for possibly Rezko) are 'personal life dirt.' These are all PROFESSIONAL associations...

souvlaki

10-14-2008, 10:18 AM

Fail. None of the associations I mentioned (except for possibly Rezko) are 'personal life dirt.' These are all PROFESSIONAL associations...

Do you think he's planning terrorist attacks with Ayers behind closed doors? Do you think he's planning the downfall of the white race with Reverend Wright? Do you think Obama is going to be sworn in on the Quran? As for ACORN, I've already responded to you several times about this in the ACORN thread and you've ignored every single one of my responses. We quite simply have a fundamental disagreement on what we look for in a President. I'm of the opinion that where they stand on the issues is more important. You are the one that seems to care more about their personal associations. For me it's a non-issue because none of the people you've mentioned in my opinion will have absolutely any impact on how he will run the country, and most of those ties are pretty flimsy at best.

The Senator

10-14-2008, 10:40 AM

Because his explanations are NON-EXPLANATIONS or LIES. Ayers was not just a guy who 'lived on his block.' He's insulting the American people by attempting to downplay and lie about his relationship to Ayers and ACORN, and also Fannie and Freddie.

This guy has a HISTORY of CLOSELY associating with corrupt organizations, and you're seriously going to fault people for wanting to know about it? You want people to just accept the guy at face value when his history reveals some pretty breathtaking questions?

Why do YOU trust this guy THAT MUCH? That's what I don't get...

What's that, RealClearPolitics? McCain is still down in VA, MO, OH, FL, WV, ND, NM, CO, IA and NV?

Tanin

10-14-2008, 10:41 AM

Man I grew up a friend to Charles D. "Tex" Watson's wife and four children. I suppose I could never do politics as that would just bite me in the ass.

The Senator

10-14-2008, 10:43 AM

Fail. None of the associations I mentioned (except for possibly Rezko) are 'personal life dirt.' These are all PROFESSIONAL associations...

Yeah, because Obama was totally bombing government office buildings during his anarchist phase at age seven.

Strange he was in Indonesia at the time, but hey, what's one tiny detail on top of a teetering stack of lies?

Oh, and speaking of fail: McCain is still down in VA, WV, OH, MO, FL, CO, NM, IA and ND.

Fading

10-14-2008, 10:57 AM

Do you think he's planning terrorist attacks with Ayers behind closed doors? Do you think he's planning the downfall of the white race with Reverend Wright? Do you think Obama is going to be sworn in on the Quran?

That is an excellent point, it's not like Obama plotted with Ayers, or helps write Wright's speeches. Hell, he condemed both of their actions and words. Yet it's incorrect to bring up Keating, or Palin's ties to a secesionist party, or her witch doctor reverend.

So if I was employeed by a man who set a bomb in the 60's, who warned ppl to get out of the way, and has done nothing since, and I spoke out against his actions, I myself can never be employeed again? For the rest of my life, this guilt by association is hanging over my head, and in some ppl's eyes I should never advance career wise?

I know this isn't an identical story to Obama's, but it's not like Obama plotted with Ayers. Knowing someone shouldn't mean you are guilty of their crimes. It's a non issue.

ShadowBoxing

10-14-2008, 10:59 AM

BS, he did not answer why he was spending 50 million on behalf of Ayers to radicalize Chicago schools. He did not answer why he launched his career in Ayers' living room. He has not answered why he gave speeches along side the guy.

All he has said is that 'he was just a neighbor' which is complete BS and you know it.
You mean the same "radical" board whose chairwoman is now backing McCain? Stop being ridiculous.

ShadowBoxing

10-14-2008, 11:01 AM

What's that, RealClearPolitics? McCain is still down in VA, MO, OH, FL, WV, ND, NM, CO, IA and NV?
Don't worry, jman, once people really learn about Ayers, they'll see the light.

--Can we officially say you're in panic mode now, Lazur?--

Current Electoral standings
Obama: 313
McCain: 158

souvlaki

10-14-2008, 11:02 AM

You mean the same "radical" board whose chairwoman is now backing McCain? Stop being ridiculous.

I already mentioned it. lazur conveniently ignored it like he always does when he makes a ridiculous claim and someone points out he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Marx

10-14-2008, 11:32 AM

MCCAIN: AYERS WILL COME UP AT THE DEBATE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081014/pl_politico/14564

(When your line of attack backfires horribly, what do you do? Keep using the same attack! Despite saying that you would back off of it. Way to go genius! :whatever:)

Marx

10-14-2008, 11:34 AM

I'm glad to see that Lazur is still hyping up that 'centrism' view of his... :whatever:

The Senator

10-14-2008, 11:36 AM

I'm glad to see that Lazur is still hyping up that 'centrism' view of his... :whatever:

Now now, we shouldn't criticize lazur's views.

He just has a different way of expressing his centrism than most people do. We should cut him some slack and let him post here in peace.

I'm sure he's a really cool guy at heart, he's just angry right now because McCain is falling behind. I'm sure he'll come around sooner than later :up:

souvlaki

10-14-2008, 11:36 AM

MCCAIN: AYERS WILL COME UP AT THE DEBATE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081014/pl_politico/14564

(When your line of attack backfires horribly, what do you do? Keep o using the same attack! Despite saying that you would back off of it. Way to go genius! :whatever:)

Not only that, but giving your opponent a chance to respond to the claims on national television could backfire big time for McCain. If Obama gives a reasonable response (which given that McCain has all but assured he will bring it up, and Obama is probably going over his response with a fine toothed comb) then it could stop the Ayers discussion right in it's tracks.

StrainedEyes

10-14-2008, 11:40 AM

Matt

10-14-2008, 11:41 AM

Not only that, but giving your opponent a chance to respond to the claims on national television could backfire big time for McCain. If Obama gives a reasonable response (which given that McCain has all but assured he will bring it up, and Obama is probably going over his response with a fine toothed comb) then it could stop the Ayers discussion right in it's tracks.

Maybe. Look at his response at the PA debate. He became visibly flustered and angry. My guess is, Obama will try to play it off like it is nothing "I was seven," or "this is a distraction issue." And if McCain can respond to either of those well, "Well how old were you when you took his money or launched your political career in his house?" or "If it is such a distraction, set the issue straight, right now," then it could backfire worse on Obama. He's going to have to be open and honest and being as that would mean discussing just how nepotistic Chicago politics are and admitting that yes, Ayers and his connections did play a big role in launching Obama's political career...I doubt he will be. Of course, I doubt McCain will have the guts to push it, so its moot. I foresee little more than a few snide comments.

Marx

10-14-2008, 11:43 AM

Not only that, but giving your opponent a chance to respond to the claims on national television could backfire big time for McCain. If Obama gives a reasonable response (which given that McCain has all but assured he will bring it up, and Obama is probably going over his response with a fine toothed comb) then it could stop the Ayers discussion right in it's tracks.

It's just a dumb idea. The 'Ayer's/terrorist/he's different/Who is the real Barack Obama' attack has blown up in McCain's face. I'm surprised the man doesn't have gunpowder all over his face! Obama has already explained this numerous times. And the fact that McCain has proudly accepted the endorsement of the person who founded the board in which Ayers and Obama served on is laughable.

John McCain should fire his entire campaign staff. He is either completely ignoring their advice, or listening to someone who clearly doesn't know how to run a campaign.

Matt

10-14-2008, 11:48 AM

It's just a dumb idea. The 'Ayer's/terrorist/he's different/Who is the real Barack Obama' attack has blown up in McCain's face. I'm surprised the man doesn't have gunpowder all over his face! Obama has already explained this numerous times. And the fact that McCain has proudly accepted the endorsement of the person who founded the board in which Ayers and Obama served on is laughable.

I do not believe he has adequately explained it. Saying "This is a distraction issue," or "I was 7 when he blew up buildings," is not adequately explaining anything. If some how, Charlie Manson makes his parole is 2012 and I take money from him for a political campaign, would saying "I wasn't born when he murdered," be good enough?

Addressing it would not be pointing out McCain's connections or making excuses for it, but having an honest and open discussion about Chicago's nepotistic system and giving the American people an honest answer of how big a role Ayers played in launching his first state senate campaign. Obama, for whatever reason, is afraid to do that.

John McCain should fire his entire campaign staff. He is either completely ignoring their advice, or listening to someone who clearly doesn't know how to run a campaign.

Can't disagree there, or with the fact that it is not working.

souvlaki

10-14-2008, 11:50 AM

McCain is going to whip his you-know-what because he has the guts to bring up something that very few people are concerned about.

Why talk about the economy, gay marriage, abortion, or equal pay when you can talk about Ayers? Way to waste time in the debate, Senator.

If he wants to waste his time, good for him. Personally, I think he fell right into a trap Obama laid out for him. This is his last opportunity to change the momentum of the race and the second he mentions Ayers it will overshadow anything else said during the debate. If Obama has a reasonable response McCain will be dead in the water.

ShadowBoxing

10-14-2008, 11:51 AM

souvlaki

10-14-2008, 11:53 AM

Maybe. Look at his response at the PA debate. He became visibly flustered and angry. My guess is, Obama will try to play it off like it is nothing "I was seven," or "this is a distraction issue." And if McCain can respond to either of those well, "Well how old were you when you took his money or launched your political career in his house?" or "If it is such a distraction, set the issue straight, right now," then it could backfire worse on Obama. He's going to have to be open and honest and being as that would mean discussing just how nepotistic Chicago politics are and admitting that yes, Ayers and his connections did play a big role in launching Obama's political career...I doubt he will be. Of course, I doubt McCain will have the guts to push it, so its moot. I foresee little more than a few snide comments.

Yeah, but Clinton caught him off guard during that debate. Obama will see it coming from McCain a mile away and has likely already written, rehearsed, and refined his response about a million times since Ayers came up a few weeks ago.

Matt

10-14-2008, 11:54 AM

Matt you keep harping on this guy as being on the same level as Manson or Bin laden. He's not. He turned himself in and was not found guilty and is now a upstanding citizen of Chicago. Stop making a mountain out of a molehill.

No he did not and no he wasn't.

He went into hiding for several years until the FBI made a mistake in the investigation and the charges got thrown out on a technicality. He never had a day in court and again, if you are responsible for the death of 3 or 3 thousand, you are just as bad in my book.

Matt

10-14-2008, 11:55 AM

Yeah, but Clinton caught him off guard during that debate. Obama will see it coming from McCain a mile away and has likely already written, rehearsed, and refined his response about a million times since Ayers came up a few weeks ago.

Yeah, I tend to agree with you there. Not to mention I can't see McCain doing anything more than a few snide comments.

Gilpesh

10-14-2008, 11:56 AM

Addressing it would not be pointing out McCain's connections or making excuses for it, but having an honest and open discussion about Chicago's nepotistic system and giving the American people an honest answer of how big a role Ayers played in launching his first state senate campaign. Obama, for whatever reason, is afraid to do that.

Heck... he could have been playing possum and waiting for McCain to pick up on it more... that way Obama would get a chance to use a zinger like, "I knew him and he helped me when I was starting out... apparently that's a bad thing when I do it but when McCain accepts the support of the wife of the founder of that board who picked Ayers to be on it... that's just a distraction issue."

But hopefully he will stop dancing around the issue and just be out with it.

kainedamo

10-14-2008, 11:58 AM

No he did not and no he wasn't.

He went into hiding for several years until the FBI made a mistake in the investigation and the charges got thrown out on a technicality. He never had a day in court and again, if you are responsible for the death of 3 or 3 thousand, you are just as bad in my book.

Did Ayers ever actually kill anyone?

I probably have closer links to the IRA than Obama does to Weather Underground. The IRA actually managed to kill a lot of people!

Marx

10-14-2008, 11:58 AM

I do not believe he has adequately explained it. Saying "This is a distraction issue," or "I was 7 when he blew up buildings," is not adequately explaining anything. If some how, Charlie Manson makes his parole is 2012 and I take money from him for a political campaign, would saying "I wasn't born when he murdered," be good enough?

Addressing it would not be pointing out McCain's connections or making excuses for it, but having an honest and open discussion about Chicago's nepotistic system and giving the American people an honest answer of how big a role Ayers played in launching his first state senate campaign. Obama, for whatever reason, is afraid to do that.

Ayers turned himself in and nothing came of it. Obama has said that they served on a board together and has gone into various details about that board. Ayers is a well respected professor now. It's not like he blew up a building full of children wearing flag pins last week! This was FORTY YEARS AGO man. I'm sick and tired of this 'guilt by association' blame game that the McCain campaign is playing. There is not one single person in Washington that cannot be tied to some undesirable character. John McCain included.

Can't disagree there, or with the fact that it is not working.

:cwink:

The Guard

10-14-2008, 11:59 AM

I don't recall Ayers and his organization ever killing anyone. And frankly, I fail to see the actual issue, other than people desperate for every politician to be "squeaky clean" (which simply isn't going to happen). Other than the fact that, at some point, Obama had ties with someone who did questionable things at one point in their life. We're talking about politicians here...aren't we?

What radical agenda in Chicago's schools?

The Senator

10-14-2008, 11:59 AM

Even if the Ayers issue comes up at the debate, I am under the distinct impression that Obama's campaign staff have come up with a way to respond to it which would both adequately address the "concerns" the McCain campaign has brought up, as well as put the issue to rest. Polls show that voters could care less about the Ayers issue, and care more about the state of the economy.

If this was four years ago, when the economy was somewhat stable and terrorism was the number one priority among voters, then I could see how McCain could use this to his advantage. However, four years have passed, we are in the midst of a recession, and voters simply do not have time to deal with petty accusations and finger pointing over Obama's association over the past ten years with a non-repentant terrorist whose last terrorist activity took place four decades ago.

Matt

10-14-2008, 12:02 PM

Ayers turned himself in and nothing came of it. Obama has said that they served on a board together and has gone into various details about that board. Ayers is a well respected professor now. It's not like he blew up a building full of children wearing flag pins last week! This was FORTY YEARS AGO man. I'm sick and tired of this 'guilt by association' blame game that the McCain campaign is playing. There is not one single person in Washington that cannot be tied to some undesirable character. John McCain included.

:cwink:

No he did not, and people should really stop using that line. He turned himself in after 10 years in hiding. He was never tried as the charges had to be dropped due to a technicality. Therefore he was not found "Not Guilty," as there was no trial.

ANd it is not guilt by association. It is guilt by having your pocket lined by a terrorist and using a nonrepentant terrorists house as the headquarters of your first campaign meeting.

Gilpesh

10-14-2008, 12:06 PM

And it is not guilt by association. It is guilt by having your pocket lined by a terrorist and using a nonrepentant terrorists house as the headquarters of your first campaign meeting.

Um... he got a little donation from Ayers? Much less than Keating's donation to McCain...

And I don't think Obama chose Ayer's house... I think it was a party for him thrown by Ayers because of mutual friends... or at least I had read that somewhere. I'm not up on my political meetings... My Political Connections Monthly is a week late.

Marx

10-14-2008, 12:07 PM

No he did not, and people should really stop using that line. He turned himself in after 10 years in hiding. He was never tried as the charges had to be dropped due to a technicality. Therefore he was not found "Not Guilty," as there was no trial.

ANd it is not guilt by association. It is guilt by having your pocket lined by a terrorist and using a nonrepentant terrorists house as the headquarters of your first campaign meeting.

I :heart: you Matt, but Ayers' actions were forty years ago. Ayers is a well respected professor now. You act as though people are incapable of rehabilitation. As I said before, there is not one person in Washington that cannot be tied to some undesirable person. If you can find one, I'd love to read about them.

Matt

10-14-2008, 12:08 PM

Um... he got a little donation from Ayers? Much less than Keating's donation to McCain...

It is a pretty substantial donation for a local state senate campaign.

And I don't think Obama chose Ayer's house... I think it was a party for him thrown by Ayers because of mutual friends... or at least I had read that somewhere. I'm not up on my political meetings... My Political Connections Monthly is a week late.

And Obama was powerless to stop this? Again, if all of this is true, then he should have no problem openly discussing the connection...yet he has refused to time and time again.

ShadowBoxing

10-14-2008, 12:08 PM

Ayers didn't kill anyone, his associates killed themselves, now you're simply playing the guilt by an association's association game.

Gilpesh

10-14-2008, 12:08 PM

You act as though people are incapable of rehabilitation.

No no no.... Lazur says that G. Gordon Liddy is rehabilitated so he is no longer a bad guy... so GOP members are capable of rehabilitation.

Marx

10-14-2008, 12:12 PM

No no no.... Lazur says that G. Gordon Liddy is rehabilitated so he is no longer a bad guy... so GOP members are capable of rehabilitation.

Lazur has zero credibility with me. :cwink:

*now back to regular programming*

Matt

10-14-2008, 12:12 PM

I :heart: you Matt, but Ayers' actions were forty years ago. Ayers is a well respected professor now. You act as though people are incapable of rehabilitation. As I said before, there is not one person in Washington that cannot be tied to some undesirable person. If you can find one, I'd love to read about them.

He was never rehabilitated. He fled from his punishment like a coward (Big, tough, freedom fighter until the notion of jail is thrown his way). And he is a well respected professor who to this day hasn't shown the least bit of remorse or guilt about what happened.

Ayers didn't kill anyone, his associates killed themselves, now you're simply playing the guilt by an association's association game.

Lets see, you organize and lead a group of people, bring them together in a situation where they build bombs with the intent to blow up buildings...yeah, I'd say its a pretty reasonable expectation that one or more can die. To say Ayers has no moral responsibility for that is absolutely ridiculous and you're better than being THAT apologetic, SB.

StrainedEyes

10-14-2008, 12:13 PM

Fading

10-14-2008, 12:15 PM

MCCAIN: AYERS WILL COME UP AT THE DEBATE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081014/pl_politico/14564

I honestly think it's a non issue. Most voters have made up their mind, and it's been discussed since Hillary. I think McCain has nothing to gain, and some ground to lose by mentioning this.

He made an ad about it, and has brought it up. If Obama gives a good response, then a big chunk of McCain's character attacks on Obama is down the drain, and all that time he spent doing it is wasted. Obama can also counter by bringing up McCain's assosiations. Also McCain has been overly negative, another character attack on Obama could drive more voters away from him.

The best McCain can hope for is a non answer on Obama's part, where McCain can continue to push the attack. However it's not swinging voters, at most a continued attack will just energize his base.

The Senator

10-14-2008, 12:15 PM

So, should Obama admit that he is a secret terrorist plotting to overthrow the United States government? :huh:

Matt

10-14-2008, 12:16 PM

Obama has said everything that needs to be said. They worked on a board together, they were helping the community, Ayers is a professor now, and he is not any kind of advisor. What more do you want?

I'm amazed that this is such an issue with you.

Have you ever lived in Chicago, Geo? I have. Everyone knows everything about everyone and the nepotism is about as bad as it gets anywhere. Chicago politics are the most unique kind in this country. Obama is over simplifying any kind of influence Ayers had in forming his initial campaign. You do not hold a meeting in someone's house who is simply a friend of a friend with no participation in your campaign. He did not sit quietly in his bedroom while Obama and his advisors planned. I do not believe for a second that Ayers was not very active in that first campaign.

Marx

10-14-2008, 12:17 PM

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the significance of 'the Ayers connection' Matt. :cwink:

Gilpesh

10-14-2008, 12:17 PM

So, should Obama admit that he is a secret terrorist plotting to overthrow the United States government? :huh:

Yeah.... he should definitely admit it... because us just assuming it is starting to look racist.

ShadowBoxing

10-14-2008, 12:19 PM

Lets see, you organize and lead a group of people, bring them together in a situation where they build bombs with the intent to blow up VACANT buildings...yeah, I'd say its a pretty reasonable expectation that one or more can die. To say Ayers has no moral responsibility for that is absolutely ridiculous and you're better than being THAT apologetic, SB.
Matt, when I was in college I got a kid kicked out because he, basically, was off his meds and claimed he was obsessed with me. It was probably a knee jerk reaction on my part. After he got kicked out he killed himself. Am I responsible for his death? Certainly the chain reaction starts, or has something to do with, actions I took. Am I a murderer Matt? If I were in a campaign would you make this an "issue". It seems you would.

Furthermore, moral responsibility has jacksquit to do with anything. We don't try people in this country morally, we try them criminally. He is not, nor can be made, criminally responsible for that crime. If you're so bent on your William Ayer's witch hunt you ask him yourself whether or not he feels morally responsible for their deaths. Twelve people were investigate for that accidental explosion, twelve, Ayers was never on that list. Ayers isn't mentioned in the near twenty articles I've now read on the Greenwich Village explosion. You seriously need to get off this kick, it's a non-issue to everyone else but you and Lazur at this point.

StrainedEyes

10-14-2008, 12:19 PM

Have you ever lived in Chicago, Geo? I have. Everyone knows everything about everyone and the nepotism is about as bad as it gets anywhere. Chicago politics are the most unique kind in this country. Obama is over simplifying any kind of influence Ayers had in forming his initial campaign. You do not hold a meeting in someone's house who is simply a friend of a friend with no participation in your campaign. He did not sit quietly in his bedroom while Obama and his advisors planned. I do not believe for a second that Ayers was not very active in that first campaign.

Wouldn't that kind of information be findable? Any financial or active influences that Ayers had during his senate campaign. People are going over this with a fine toothed comb, wouldn't something more suspicious have come up by now?

So your main concern is that Obama used his Chicago connections in order to win his Senate race?

The Senator

10-14-2008, 12:19 PM

Yeah.... he should definitely admit it... because us just assuming it is starting to look racist.

Well, he is a Muslim, afterall.

Plus, his middle name "Hussein" automatically makes him a filthy proponent of terrorism.

And let's not get into the whole one letter off from "Osama" thing... there are just way too many indications that this man is not fit for the presidency.

ShadowBoxing

10-14-2008, 12:21 PM

So your main concern is that Obama used his Chicago connections in order to win his Senate race?
Wow what a crime. I mean it's not like McCain ever used connections to win races in his state:whatever:

The Senator

10-14-2008, 12:21 PM

Wouldn't that kind of information be findable? Any financial or active influences that Ayers had during his senate campaign? People are going over this with a fine toothed comb, wouldn't something more suspicious have come up by now?

So your main concern is that Obama used his Chicago connections in order to win his Senate race?

Was it even his Senate race?

I was under the impression Obama used Ayers' home to jump start his state senate race.

Of course, I was also under the impression that having a party at a non-repentant terrorist's house did not make one guilty of said terrorists' crimes by association... but silly me, being assumptive like that.

The Senator

10-14-2008, 12:23 PM

Wow what a crime. I mean it's not like McCain ever used connections to win races in his state:whatever:

It's also not like McCain never associated himself with shady, disgusting figures to get where he is today, like Jerry Falwell or John Hagee.

Oh wait-- they were white bigots, which is perfectly normal and apparently acceptable here in America. Silly me again.

Matt

10-14-2008, 12:24 PM

Matt, when I was in college I got a kid kicked out because he, basically, was off his meds and claimed he was obsessed with me. It was probably a knee jerk reaction on my part. After he got kicked out he killed himself. Am I responsible for his death? Certainly the chain reaction starts, or has something to do with, actions I took. Am I a murderer Matt? If I were in a campaign would you make this an "issue". It seems you would.

Furthermore, moral responsibility has jacksquit to do with anything. We don't try people in this country morally, we try them criminally. He is not, nor can be made, criminally responsible for that crime. If you're so bent on your William Ayer's witch hunt you ask him yourself whether or not he feels morally responsible for their deaths. Twelve people were investigate for that accidental explosion, twelve, Ayers was never on that list. Ayers isn't mentioned in the near twenty articles I've now read on the Greenwich Village explosion. You seriously need to get off this kick, it's a non-issue to everyone else but you and Lazur at this point.

You're comparing bringing a group of people together with the intent of building a bomb with kicking someone out of an apartment. That is such an irrational comparrison that I can't even debate this with you, SB, old friend. We're simply going to have to agree to disagree.

Wouldn't that kind of information be findable? Any financial or active influences that Ayers had during his senate campaign. People are going over this with a fine toothed comb, wouldn't something more suspicious have come up by now?

Like most local level campaigns, it is a small grass root campaign. It is not run like a small corporation like state and federal campaigns. It is easy for someone to have a huge role and never have their name appear in writing.

So your main concern is that Obama used his Chicago connections in order to win his Senate race?

Yes, and based on what I know of Chicago politics, having lived there, I believe Ayers was a big reason he had those connections.

ShadowBoxing

10-14-2008, 12:24 PM

Was it even his Senate race?

I was under the impression Obama used Ayers' home to jump start his state senate race.

Of course, I was also under the impression that having a party at a non-repentant terrorist's house did not make one guilty of said terrorists' crimes by association... but silly me, being assumptive like that.
I'm sure Ayers hangs a sign on his house to that says "Non-repentant terrorist inside" just so everyone who knows him knows every-little-thing-he's-done-ever because, well, that's how great a guy he is.

Gilpesh

10-14-2008, 12:25 PM

Well, he is a Muslim, afterall.

Plus, his middle name "Hussein" automatically makes him a filthy proponent of terrorism.

And let's not get into the whole one letter off from "Osama" thing... there are just way too many indications that this man is not fit for the presidency.

I mean hey... he even married a black woman when he himself is clearly not black.

What kind of judgment is that?

souvlaki

10-14-2008, 12:25 PM

Have you ever lived in Chicago, Geo? I have. Everyone knows everything about everyone and the nepotism is about as bad as it gets anywhere. Chicago politics are the most unique kind in this country. Obama is over simplifying any kind of influence Ayers had in forming his initial campaign. You do not hold a meeting in someone's house who is simply a friend of a friend with no participation in your campaign. He did not sit quietly in his bedroom while Obama and his advisors planned. I do not believe for a second that Ayers was not very active in that first campaign.

Okay, let's just assume you are right. Then what? Was Ayers showing Obama and his advisors how to construct a bomb? Were they plotting a terrorist attack on Chicago? Where does the story go from there, Matt? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by just pretending these guys were in fact secretly best buds. So what. This sounds more like a plot from the seventh season of 24 than anything that has any basis in reality.

Matt

10-14-2008, 12:26 PM

Okay, let's just assume you are right. Then what? Was Ayers showing Obama and his advisors how to construct a bomb? Were they plotting a terrorist attack on Chicago? Where does the story go from there, Matt? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by just pretending these guys were in fact secretly best buds. So what. This sounds more like a plot from the seventh season of 24 than anything that has any basis in reality.

I'm not saying Obama is a terrorist. I am simply saying you can judge a man by the company he keeps, be it Jerimiah Wright, Bill Ayers, or Tony Rezko or the countless other shady connections that have been linked to Obama (and for the inevitable, "You can judge McCain by so and so," comments...yes, McCain is a bastard too). He has at best shown horrendous judgement by keeping some of these people around and that concerns me.

The Senator

10-14-2008, 12:26 PM

Yes, and based on what I know of Chicago politics, having lived there, I believe Ayers was a big reason he had those connections.

Or it could have been the Daleys, or Bobby Rush, or the dozens of other Chicago politicians who used their connections to get Obama's foot in the door. Just because Ayers threw a party at his house, that does not mean that Ayers is entirely responsible for Obama's political career.

ShadowBoxing

10-14-2008, 12:27 PM

You can judge a man by the company he keepsNo...No, you can't. Ever.:huh:

Matt

10-14-2008, 12:27 PM

Or it could have been the Daleys, or Bobby Rush, or the dozens of other Chicago politicians who used their connections to get Obama's foot in the door. Just because Ayers threw a party at his house, that does not mean that Ayers is entirely responsible for Obama's political career.

Not entirely, but I believe he played a much bigger role than Obama is willing to admit. Again, you do not hold a campaign meeting for someone and then sit in your bedroom quietly.

Fading

10-14-2008, 12:30 PM

Honestly, I don't think it matters what Obama says about it now. He's given an answer, and some of us will continue not to care about it, and others will never stop pressing the issue and think no answer Obama gives will ever be good enough. Is Obama guilty of the bombings because of his association with Ayers? Is Obama a terrorist because of this? Did Obama get ideas from Ayers on how to bomb buildings? This is such a non issue.

If this is the worst in Obama's background, then he's not all that bad. Politicians have been accepting 'donations' from various organizations for years, and in turn voted in favor of those organizations. Bush, McCain, Clinton, I'm sure all 3 of them have had shady connections.

Not trying to copy and Obama answer, but this really is a huge distraction. Will talking about Ayers fix the economy, or tell us who has a better stance on foreign matters? We're a month away from the election, and this is what we're talking about during a war, and a financial crisis?

The Guard

10-14-2008, 12:30 PM

So, because you and others believe something...which apparently cannot be proven...

What bearing does that have on anything, really?

The Senator

10-14-2008, 12:31 PM

Not entirely, but I believe he played a much bigger role than Obama is willing to admit. Again, you do not hold a campaign meeting for someone and then sit in your bedroom quietly.

But you cannot have a successful campaign without support from other important political figures and actors. Ayers may have thrown a party for Obama to jumpstart one of his political careers, but he is not solely responsible for Obama's political success, nor were his once-radical ideals represented by Obama's campaign.

souvlaki

10-14-2008, 12:31 PM

I'm not saying Obama is a terrorist. I am simply saying you can judge a man by the company he keeps, be it Jerimiah Wright, Bill Ayers, or Tony Rezko or the countless other shady connections that have been linked to Obama (and for the inevitable, "You can judge McCain by so and so," comments...yes, McCain is a bastard too). He has at best shown horrendous judgement by keeping some of these people around and that concerns me.

I agree to a certain extant. But we all have our shady acquaintances, people who we dont agree with but we still work with the for a better good. I see no evidence that Obama is idealogically aligned with Ayers in any way. So who really cares if they work on a board together, or if Ayers threw him a fundraiser. As long as they weren't holding closed door meetings talking about blowing up washington, or overthrowing the country I'd say this is much to do about nothing.

The Senator

10-14-2008, 12:32 PM

No...No, you can't. Ever.:huh:

I'm friends with an anarchist.

I guess that means I hate the government, even though I've worked for it and actively support it pretty much the way it is :huh:

Matt

10-14-2008, 12:35 PM

ShadowBoxing

10-14-2008, 12:36 PM

I'm friends with an anarchist.

I guess that means I hate the government, even though I've worked for it and actively support it pretty much the way it is :huh:
My best friend, who I will be a groomsman for, is a Evangelical Creationist Christian. I guess that means I'm an Evangelical:huh:.

The Guard

10-14-2008, 12:37 PM

It doesn't bother you that these men could have the president's ear if they wanted it?

What are you basing this on?

lazur

10-14-2008, 12:38 PM

Don't worry, jman, once people really learn about Ayers, they'll see the light.

--Can we officially say you're in panic mode now, Lazur?--

Current Electoral standings
Obama: 313
McCain: 158

Actually, I'm not. Obama will most likely win (if the polls are accurate) if not fairly, then because ACORN is committing massive nationwide voter fraud. But that's fine. Democrats will get a real taste of socialism and economic depression once he does since Democrats will be able to spend, spend, spend without resistance from anyone.

Careful what you wish for.

As for me, I literally have about five different countries I can move to if necessary, and still maintain my income. :)

Gilpesh

10-14-2008, 12:41 PM

Lazur... stop shouting socialism... McCain just said he wanted the government to reform businesses...

So stop being dense.

ShadowBoxing

10-14-2008, 12:41 PM

--What are you going to say if this man ends up more popular than Reagan?

The Senator

10-14-2008, 12:42 PM

As for me, I literally have about five different countries I can move to if necessary, and still maintain my income. :)

It saddens me that you would be willing to leave this country if the person who you do not agree with politically becomes president.

If John McCain becomes president, there is a 99% chance I will still remain the country. In fact, I wouldn't even consider researching other countries to move to.

For someone who has served his country and expressed such love for his country... this post does not seem like the representation of the true patriot you are. Please tell me you are not thinking about leaving this great country, solely on the basis of a political disagreement. :csad:

ShadowBoxing

10-14-2008, 12:42 PM

As for me, I literally have about five different countries I can move to if necessary, and still maintain my income. :)
Wow, I guess you're totally 'Country First', huh :up:

lazur

10-14-2008, 12:43 PM

I agree to a certain extant. But we all have our shady acquaintances, people who we dont agree with but we still work with the for a better good. I see no evidence that Obama is idealogically aligned with Ayers in any way. So who really cares if they work on a board together, or if Ayers threw him a fundraiser. As long as they weren't holding closed door meetings talking about blowing up washington, or overthrowing the country I'd say this is much to do about nothing.

What's funny is you talk like you actually know Obama and trust him, when in reality NO ONE knows this guy. We know only what he tells us, and most of that is BS. He'll cut taxes on 95%. Give me a break. When he gets into office and realizes that he can't keep any of the promises he has made, you'll get what you're asking for. But I'm sure you'll still eat up his ever word despite that he won't be delivering on anything he's promised while campaigning.

No one knows this guy, or what his 'real' agenda is. Given all of his questionable associations, people aren't wrong for not trusting him. But to you, anyone who doesn't trust him must be a card-carrying member of the GOP. :rolleyes:

lazur

10-14-2008, 12:43 PM

Wow, I guess you're totally 'Country First', huh :up:

If Obama is elected, you can kiss this country goodbye.

ShadowBoxing

10-14-2008, 12:45 PM

If Obama is elected, you can kiss this country goodbye.
How so? If he does a bad job, he gets voted out of office.

The Senator

10-14-2008, 12:45 PM

If Obama is elected, you can kiss this country goodbye.

Oh, that's right-- you also said that Obama wants to destroy the United States Military.

So yeah, we can totally kiss the country goodbye, because he's going to allow us to be invaded by evil forces, right? :huh:

Matt

10-14-2008, 12:46 PM

lazur

10-14-2008, 12:46 PM

It saddens me that you would be willing to leave this country if the person who you do not agree with politically becomes president.

If John McCain becomes president, there is a 99% chance I will still remain the country. In fact, I wouldn't even consider researching other countries to move to.

For someone who has served his country and expressed such love for his country... this post does not seem like the representation of the true patriot you are. Please tell me you are not thinking about leaving this great country, solely on the basis of a political disagreement. :csad:

Wrong. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with Obama. The Democratic party USED TO BE a decent party with family values and patriotism. All it is now is a haven for corruption, fraud and the 'me first' mentality. It's sickening.

I would not leave this country because of party. I would leave this country because I don't want to be around when Obama destroys it financially, militarily and otherwise. I don't want to be around in this country when it jumps over the cliff to irreversible socialism. I don't want to have to see the country I love get sold off to the the greater world government. And that's exactly what will happen when Obama is able to realize and implement his RADICAL agenda.

souvlaki

10-14-2008, 12:48 PM

It doesn't bother you that these men could have the president's ear if they wanted it? It bothers me. And I will not simply accept "well, we all have shady connections, and sure, he may have lied about them or danced around it...but...all politicians do it," from a man who promised to be different and bring change.

Well, we've had this conversation before Matt, and you know I think his "change" platform is a bunch of b.s. I'm fully aware he just like every other politician has his skeletons and he's bumped into a few shady people in his political career. But it comes down to judgment for me, and the belief that he is his own man. I mean, Ayers isn't going to ask him to help plan a terrorist attack when he becomes President, and Wright is not going to ask him to destroy the white race. Not everyone I work with I like, and hell, some of them I flat out dont trust. But just because I have those associations doesn't mean I feel in any way obligated to help them out with their cornball (and in some cases illegal) schemes.

The Senator

10-14-2008, 12:48 PM

The Senator

10-14-2008, 12:50 PM

Wrong. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with Obama. The Democratic party USED TO BE a decent party with family values and patriotism. All it is now is a haven for corruption, fraud and the 'me first' mentality. It's sickening.

I would not leave this country because of party. I would leave this country because I don't want to be around when Obama destroys it financially, militarily and otherwise. I don't want to be around in this country when it jumps over the cliff to irreversible socialism. I don't want to have to see the country I love get sold off to the the greater world government. And that's exactly what will happen when Obama is able to realize and implement his RADICAL agenda.

Do you have a source you can provide us where Obama has said that he will destroy us militarily or economically?

Or are you just spewing one-sided gobbledygook while ignoring the adverse effects of what a McCain presidency could bring?

Because I highly doubt John McCain will make this country a real Candyland if he's elected.

lazur

10-14-2008, 12:52 PM

Bah, people say that every election. "If so and so wins, our country is screwed." Wasn't our country supposed to be in civil war if Bush won a second term? And weren't we supposed to be enduring a second great depression if Clinton did. These fear mongering tactics come with every election.

Sure, Obama will probably be bad for the country, probably cause the deficit to expand and lower the ammount of business done in the US with high corporate taxes, but John McCain would be just as bad in a different way. Once again, we have an election where we are screwed regardless.

Sorry dude, but we have just witnessed one of the biggest acts of corruption by elected officials in the HISTORY of our great country with ACORN and then Fannie and Freddie. Democrats in the House and Senate are 100% responsible for the financial mess we are in. Obama himself took a huge payout from Fannie and Freddie. Obama himself worked with and for ACORN, even giving them 800k of his own campaign money to 'get out the vote.' For YEARS Democrats have obstructed regulation of Fannie and Freddie and have protected and funded ACORN with taxpayer money. Here we are handing out 500 million a year to a supposedly 'bipartisan' organization that has publicly announced its support for Obama. What would Democrats think of a 500 million a year 'bipartisan' organization committing voter fraud in 14 states that had publicly announced support for McCain. They'd be OUTRAGED, and they'd be RIGHT for being outraged.

People may say that every election, but there's never been a time in our history where fraud and corruption were so WIDELY ACCEPTED by a single party. Democrats on this very board choose to IGNORE the writing on the wall in favor of charisma and charm and someone who's able to speak well in public. They don't care what he says. They eat it up, whatever it is. Obama even said he's OPPOSED to gay marriage. Yet, you don't hear Democrats complaining. But when McCain said it, LET'S CRUCIFY HIM!

Nope, what Democrats on this board and everywhere else want is socialism. They want to ruin 'Corporate America' and that's fine. But I will not be here to partake in this mass insanity. Our country is going down the toilet and the only thing Democrats are worried about are what entitlements they'll be getting.

No thanks. I have a back up plan. And it's not just me saying it. I do have a back up plan. I will not keep my kids in this country if it's sold out to the Democrats and their socialist and corrupt ways.

The Incredible Hulk

10-14-2008, 12:52 PM

--What are you going to say if this man ends up more popular than Reagan?

well hopefully for us, Obama's economic policies dont come back to rape us 20 years later after he's dead and buried.

Honestly I think if McCain or Obama got elected, they could turn out to be the greatest President since FDR and no one on the other side of the political spectrum would ever admit it because today there is such an "us vs. them" mentality in politics as opposed to "us." It's almost become like sports fandom in how a Yankes or Sox fan will never ever concede something about the other side. It's sad in a way that so many people act like that. As an independent voter, who judges the individual candidates on their merits as opposed to the letter in paranthesis after their name, it sickens me.

Gilpesh

10-14-2008, 12:52 PM

I don't want to be around in this country when it jumps over the cliff to irreversible socialism.

Stop ignoring the f**king truth...

McCain brings just as much socialism into office... first buying all the bad mortgages and now saying the government should reform businesses...

McCain thinks government should step in and completely reform businesses.

Let me say that again...

McCain thinks government should step in and completely reform businesses.

ShadowBoxing

10-14-2008, 12:53 PM

Wrong. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with Obama. The Democratic party USED TO BE a decent party with family values and patriotism. All it is now is a haven for corruption, fraud and the 'me first' mentality. It's sickening.
Unlike you, Mr Country First, who wants to leave the country.
I would not leave this country because of party. I would leave this country because I don't want to be around when Obama destroys it financially, militarily and otherwise.
As opposed to George W. Bush destroying us financially and Militarily.
I don't want to be around in this country when it jumps over the cliff to irreversible socialism.
Like, for example, if a President were to, say, buy up all the bad mortgages socialism? Oh, wait...sorry...that's McCain's plan. Okay, I got a better one, socialism like when a Government nationalizes it's financial institutions...oh...wait...sorry...that's Paulson and Bush's plan.
I don't want to have to see the country I love get sold off to the the greater world government. And that's exactly what will happen if Obama wins.
I seriously hope you realize how limited the scope of the President's power is.

Matt

10-14-2008, 12:54 PM

Sorry dude, but we have just witnessed one of the biggest acts of corruption by elected officials in the HISTORY of our great country with ACORN and then Fannie and Freddie. Democrats in the House and Senate are 100% responsible for the financial mess we are in. Obama himself took a huge payout from Fannie and Freddie. Obama himself worked with and for ACORN, even giving them 800k of his own campaign money to 'get out the vote.'

People may say that every election, but there's never been a time in our history where fraud and corruption were so WIDELY ACCEPTED by a single party. Democrats on this very board choose to IGNORE the writing on the wall in favor of charisma and charm and someone who's able to speak well in public. They don't care what he says. They eat it up, whatever it is. Obama even said he's OPPOSED to gay marriage. Yet, you don't hear Democrats complaining.

Nope, what Democrats on this board and everywhere else want is socialism. They want to ruin 'Corporate America' and that's fine. But I will not be here to partake in this mass insanity. Our country is going down the toilet and the only thing Democrats are worried about are what entitlements they'll be getting.

No thanks.

And with Lincoln we endured one of the most unconstitutional expansions of executive power in our country's history (forcing states who democratically chose to secede to stay in the Union). And with FDR we saw one of the most illegal usage of tax dollars in our country's history. It didn't mean our country is on its way out, and I don't think the bailout does either.

I agree, Obama is a bad choice...but, he won't destroy America.

The Senator

10-14-2008, 12:55 PM

Sorry dude, but we have just witnessed one of the biggest acts of corruption by elected officials in the HISTORY of our great country with ACORN and then Fannie and Freddie. Democrats in the House and Senate are 100% responsible for the financial mess we are in. Obama himself took a huge payout from Fannie and Freddie. Obama himself worked with and for ACORN, even giving them 800k of his own campaign money to 'get out the vote.'

People may say that every election, but there's never been a time in our history where fraud and corruption were so WIDELY ACCEPTED by a single party. Democrats on this very board choose to IGNORE the writing on the wall in favor of charisma and charm and someone who's able to speak well in public. They don't care what he says. They eat it up, whatever it is. Obama even said he's OPPOSED to gay marriage. Yet, you don't hear Democrats complaining.

Nope, what Democrats on this board and everywhere else want is socialism. They want to ruin 'Corporate America' and that's fine. But I will not be here to partake in this mass insanity. Our country is going down the toilet and the only thing Democrats are worried about are what entitlements they'll be getting.

No thanks.

I've complained about Obama's stance on gay marriage :huh:

Also, so have Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin, the two openly gay members in the United States Congress.

Plus, the single-biggest case of corruption occurred during the election of 1824, when Adams was elected president through the Corrupt Bargain. Historical knowledge is often important when making such large claims, friend :up:

lazur

10-14-2008, 01:01 PM

Do you have a source you can provide us where Obama has said that he will destroy us militarily or economically?

Or are you just spewing one-sided gobbledygook while ignoring the adverse effects of what a McCain presidency could bring?

Because I highly doubt John McCain will make this country a real Candyland if he's elected.

Obama could say anything at this point and I would not trust him. You should learn to be skeptical of people until they've PROVEN themselves. Three years in the Senate has PROVEN one thing to me about Obama - he's just as corrupt, underhanded, shady and just as full of self-interest as the rest of the Democrats in the House and Senate (with the exception of a few).

I would think that people as bright as the people who post here clearly are would have figured out BY NOW that you don't just simply BELIEVE everything these candidates say. You HAVE to look at their records. But for Obama, apparently his record (which is damning compared to his rhetoric) doesn't matter. Just elect a Democrat and 'get those Republicans out of there, yeeeehaaa!'

Well, like I said, you may get what you wish for. But for your sake and mine, I hope you don't.

The Incredible Hulk

10-14-2008, 01:01 PM

Sorry dude, but we have just witnessed one of the biggest acts of corruption by elected officials in the HISTORY of our great country with ACORN and then Fannie and Freddie. Democrats in the House and Senate are 100% responsible for the financial mess we are in.

You logic fails in that neither ACORN, nor Fannie and Freddie are solely repsonsible for the "economic mess." What about all of the executive comp and corporate profiteering issues? What do you think the political affiliation is of all these CEO's of these mega-corporations who are making ridiculous sums of money, hiding thier income, and then running these companies into the ground while acquiring a golden parachute in the process? Or the corporate leaders who approved all of these BS housing loans to inflate their profit numbers for Wall St.? Or the people that run companies like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, etc? They're sure as hell not Democratic Party campaign contributors I can tell you that. It's ridiculous to try and point the finger at not only one party but one set of factors for the ecomonic situation we're in. There's enough blame to go around. Linking one party or candidate to these issues is EXTREMELY short-sighted.

ShadowBoxing

10-14-2008, 01:02 PM

Like, say, how I can look at McCain's record and see how pro-deregulation he has been and come to the conclusion that it is bad for America right now.

lazur

10-14-2008, 01:05 PM

I've complained about Obama's stance on gay marriage :huh:

Also, so have Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin, the two openly gay members in the United States Congress.

Plus, the single-biggest case of corruption occurred during the election of 1824, when Adams was elected president through the Corrupt Bargain. Historical knowledge is often important when making such large claims, friend :up:

Speaking of Barney Frank and corruption, what of his nine-year love affair with a senior executive (Herb Moses) at Fannie Mae? I suppose his protection of Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with that, right? :rolleyes:

Gilpesh

10-14-2008, 01:06 PM

You HAVE to look at their records.

Like when McCain cost the taxpayers seven billion dollars in pure pork but now says... I'll stop earmarks!...

You only use your arguments on one party... stop.

jaguarr

10-14-2008, 01:07 PM

I'm not saying Obama is a terrorist. I am simply saying you can judge a man by the company he keeps, be it Jerimiah Wright, Bill Ayers, or Tony Rezko or the countless other shady connections that have been linked to Obama (and for the inevitable, "You can judge McCain by so and so," comments...yes, McCain is a bastard too). He has at best shown horrendous judgement by keeping some of these people around and that concerns me.

I'll be honest, with associations like Phil Gramm, Charles Keating, Charlie Black, Jack Abramoff, Carl Lindner Jr., G. Gordon Liddy, Rick Renzi, Ralph Reed and the countless lobbyists running his campaign I am infinitely more concerned about the company McCain keeps than I am Obama.

jag

ShadowBoxing

10-14-2008, 01:07 PM

Speaking of Barney Frank and corruption, what of his nine-year love affair with a senior executive (Herb Moses) at Fannie Mae? I suppose his protection of Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with that, right? :rolleyes:
Yep, Lazur, that's it, it's all the gay's fault:whatever:

lazur

10-14-2008, 01:14 PM

You logic fails in that neither ACORN, nor Fannie and Freddie are solely repsonsible for the "economic mess." What about all of the executive comp and corporate profiteering issues? What do you think the political affiliation is of all these CEO's of these mega-corporations who are making ridiculous sums of money, hiding thier income, and then running these companies into the ground while acquiring a golden parachute in the process? Or the corporate leaders who approved all of these BS housing loans to inflate their profit numbers for Wall St.? Or the people that run companies like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, etc? They're sure as hell not Democratic Party campaign contributors I can tell you that. It's ridiculous to try and point the finger at not only one party but one set of factors for the ecomonic situation we're in. There's enough blame to go around. Linking one party or candidate to these issues is EXTREMELY short-sighted.

The housing crisis is where ALL of this started, and the housing crisis was STARTED by ACORN, Fannie and Freddie. Fannie and Freddie were NOT regulated the same as NORMAL banks. They were government chartered banks used by Democrats as a cash cow for funding their causes, on of which was ACORN, and then used to buy up all of the bad paper these causes created so as not to appear volatile to the American people. AIG only went under because they were insuring the bad paper.

Then we find Barney Frank saying 2007 that everything's fine with Fanne and Freddie, despite that Bush asked EVERY YEAR for more regulation on them, despite that House and Senate Republicans brought up the need for regulation at least THREE times during Bush's two terms, despite that McCain himself tried to take action three years ago.

It's absolutely ridiculous that ANYONE would even ATTEMPT to protect the Democrats in Congress who caused this mess by thwarting ALL efforts to get it under control. We have top Democrats taking payoffs to keep regulation away. We have top Democrats trying to blame it ALL on the Republicans despite the overwhelming mountain of evidence that says otherwise that people even HERE choose to just completely ignore. The head of the banking committee in charge of oversight of Fannie and Freddie was having an AFFAIR with a senior executive at Fannie for crying out loud, and yet there's no problem? All I can say is WTF. I'm baffled. I thought the people at least on this board were more intelligent than to just be painted into the corner of their 'party' particularly when faced with such overwhelming evidence of corruption and fraud, but I can see that I was wrong. It's all about 'what can my country do for me.' Patriotism in this country is dead.

Excel

10-14-2008, 01:14 PM

The Ayers-Obama association IS shady connection, but anybody who think the connection alone is shady enough to make Obama a bad guy or unqualified for President is grasping for straws; people need to realize NO PRESIDENT is going to have a sqeaky clean past because nobody does. I have a friend whose been stealing gps systems out of peoples cars. Do I respect him, agree with what hes doing, or try to surround myself or family with him? Hell no. But was he a friend of mine who I hung out with at one time? Yup. Does that mean I am as bad?

Of course not, and thats the way it with Obama and Ayers.

That said, its a weak connection at that. It si the very definition of "guilty by association". People try to make it sound like Obama himself was involved with the bombings, or he and Ayers went out clubbing back in the day. Not the case.

The reality is Obama WORKED WITH and SERVED ON A BOARD with the a guy who did a bad thing 30 years ago; people change and this guy obviously has otherwise he wouldnt be as respcted as he is; anybody who cant see that isnt looking at the situation objectivly.

lazur

10-14-2008, 01:15 PM

Like when McCain cost the taxpayers seven billion dollars in pure pork but now says... I'll stop earmarks!...

You only use your arguments on one party... stop.

McCain did not cost us 7 billion in pork. Nice talking point though.

lazur

10-14-2008, 01:16 PM

Yep, Lazur, that's it, it's all the gay's fault:whatever:

You're the only one bringing up that Frank is gay. All I said was that he had an affair with Herb Moses.

It shouldn't matter what his sexual orientation is. If 'Herb' had been 'Helen' what would you say then?

ShadowBoxing

10-14-2008, 01:16 PM

McCain did not cost us 7 billion in pork. Nice talking point though.
He pushed, behind the scenes, for a lot of earmarks for the Navy and army. It's all on record. The 7 billion is in reference to a specific earmark he worked with the head of the Navy to get.

Gilpesh

10-14-2008, 01:18 PM

McCain did not cost us 7 billion in pork. Nice talking point though.

Um... the Midway.

You know what that is?

lazur

10-14-2008, 01:19 PM

He pushed, behind the scenes, for a lot of earmarks for the Navy and army. It's all on record. The 7 billion is in reference to a specific earmark he worked with the head of the Navy to get.

BS. Be specific or drop it. McCain has NOT gotten 7 billion in earmarks.

Stick to the facts or maybe you shouldn't participate.

And thanks in advance.

ShadowBoxing

10-14-2008, 01:19 PM

You're the only one bringing up that Frank is gay. All I said was that he had an affair with Herb Moses.

It shouldn't matter what his sexual orientation is. If 'Herb' had been 'Helen' what would you say then?
...But you didn't try to pin it on a heterosexual love affair, so I don't have to speculate what could have been.

Excel

10-14-2008, 01:20 PM

McCain did not cost us 7 billion in pork. Nice talking point though.

McCain will crash our country just like he crashes planes; hes a stubburn, irresponsible gambler whose record only shows him putting himself and his camapign ahead of everything, especially his country, starting with the pick of Sarah Palin over Mitt Romney.

You wanna look at records, than why not actually look at his? His entire message contradicts all of his camapign and McCain himselfs actions.

lazur

10-14-2008, 01:21 PM

...But you didn't try to pin it on a heterosexual love affair, so I don't have to speculate what could have been.

Are you smoking crack or something? Frank had a LOVE AFFAIR with Herb Moses for NINE YEARS. What does sexual orientation have to do with anything? They had a LOVE AFFAIR and Herb Moses was a SENIOR EXECUTIVE AT FANNIE WHILE FRANK WAS CHAIRMAN OF THE BANK COMMITTEE THAT OVERSAW FANNIE.

Start making sense, will ya?

lazur

10-14-2008, 01:24 PM

McCain will crash our country just like he crashes planes; hes a stubburn, irresponsible gambler whose record only shows him putting himself and his camapign ahead of everything, especially his country, starting with the pick of Sarah Palin over Mitt Romney.

You wanna look at records, than why not actually look at his? His entire message contradicts all of his camapign and McCain himselfs actions.

When I talk about Obama, I actually get specific. When you guys talk about McCain, you make outlandish claims without ANY evidence. McCain spent 7 billion in earmarks! BS, show me the proof. McCain will crash the country like he crashed his plane! Yeah, that's factual and coherent...

The facts are that McCain has a history of demonstrating his love for this country time and time again. He has a history of working for the people.

I won't apologize if it pisses you off that McCain's record is far more attractive than Obama's.

ShadowBoxing

10-14-2008, 01:24 PM

BS. Be specific or drop it. McCain has NOT gotten 7 billion in earmarks.

Stick to the facts or maybe you shouldn't participate.

And thanks in advance.
http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2008/02/john-mccain-lying-about-earmarks-hes.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/06/mccain-earmark/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/18/mccain-voted-for-earmark_n_119651.html

http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/04/mccain_myth_bus_43.php

ShadowBoxing

10-14-2008, 01:26 PM

Are you smoking crack or something? Frank had a LOVE AFFAIR with Herb Moses for NINE YEARS. What does sexual orientation have to do with anything? They had a LOVE AFFAIR and Herb Moses was a SENIOR EXECUTIVE AT FANNIE WHILE FRANK WAS CHAIRMAN OF THE BANK COMMITTEE THAT OVERSAW FANNIE.

Start making sense, will ya?
Lazur:
ScA7PhDJPJE

lazur

10-14-2008, 01:26 PM

http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2008/02/john-mccain-lying-about-earmarks-hes.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/06/mccain-earmark/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/18/mccain-voted-for-earmark_n_119651.html

http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/04/mccain_myth_bus_43.php

You're not going to support your FACTS by posting links to four liberal sites. How about CNN? Where's their story on this 7 billion? ;)

Excel

10-14-2008, 01:27 PM

McCain will crash the country like he crashed his plane! Yeah, that's factual and coherent...

The facts are that McCain has a history of demonstrating his love for this country time and time again. He has a history of working for the people.

I won't apologize if it pisses you off that McCain's record is far more attractive than Obama's.

Your right, I wish Obama had McCains record of voting against regulization, womens rights, MLK's holiday, and all that jazz we know the Macdaddy supported or opposed.

My b :cwink:

jaguarr

10-14-2008, 01:28 PM

You're not going to support your FACTS by posting links to four liberal sites. How about CNN? Where's their story on this 7 billion? ;)

LOL! I knew this would be your response to his post when I saw the sites he was linking to. You're like a trained parrot these days. :D

jag

Excel

10-14-2008, 01:29 PM

Lazur, what do you think about an Obama win?

lazur

10-14-2008, 01:30 PM

Your right, I wish Obama had McCains record of voting against regulization, womens rights, MLK's holiday, and all that jazz we know the Macdaddy supported or opposed.

My b :cwink:

Yeah because ALL one of those things are FAR more important than bankrupting the country.

Like I said - for Democrats, it's all about social issues. Let's see how important MLK's holiday is when we're living through another Depression thanks to Obama and his torrid affair with ACORN and Fannie and Freddie.

ShadowBoxing

10-14-2008, 01:30 PM

You're not going to support your FACTS by posting links to four liberal sites. How about CNN? Where's their story on this 7 billion? ;)
Oh that, here....
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23316912/makebelieve_maverick/print
As the Navy's top lobbyist, McCain was supposed to carry out the bidding of the secretary of the Navy. But in 1978 he went off the reservation. Vietnam was over, and the Carter administration, cutting costs, had decided against spending $2 billion to replace the aging carrier Midway. The secretary agreed with the administration's decision. Readiness would not be affected. The only reason to replace the carrier — at a cost of nearly $7 billion in today's dollars — was pork-barrel politics.

Although he now crusades against wasteful military spending, McCain had no qualms about secretly lobbying for a pork project that would pay for a dozen Bridges to Nowhere. "He did a lot of stuff behind the back of the secretary of the Navy," one lobbyist told Timberg. Working his Senate connections, McCain managed to include a replacement for the Midway in the defense authorization bill in 1978. Carter, standing firm, vetoed the entire spending bill to kill the carrier. When an attempt to override the veto fell through, however, McCain and his lobbyist friends didn't give up the fight. The following year, Congress once again approved funding for the carrier. This time, Carter — his pork-busting efforts undone by a turncoat Navy liaison — signed the bill.

Excel

10-14-2008, 01:35 PM

Laz, John McCain was against ALL regulation. You realize the lack of regulation is why we are in such a mess, right? I would hope so, even John McCain does. He was just WRONG about the issue at the beginning, shocker, not the 1st time.

Facts are facts, I dont wanna be here in 4 years listening to McCain do what he is doing now: making excuses for why he was wrong at the begining but should still be trusted.

:hehe: Conservatives and their "trickle down" ideas :hehe:

when we're living through another Depression thanks to Obama and his torrid affair with ACORN and Fannie and Freddie.

:hehe:

Brosef how is fantasy land, must be nice living there. We are just now seeing the effects of the 6 years Bush was in office that he had a republican congress; all of their brilliant ideas have gotten us real far, right?

The mess we are in has NOTHING to do with Obama, you have no proof of that...if you do please show and dont say its over some gay affair or something

lazur

10-14-2008, 01:35 PM

LOL! I knew this would be your response to his post when I saw the sites he was linking to. You're like a trained parrot these days. :D

jag

Actually, I did visit the links. They show 24 million in 'earmarks' to military installations. Wow, so let's crucify the guy for spending 24 million on the military to get them what they need, and let's PRAISE Obama for funneling 40 times that amount to Illinois for FAR LESS noble reasons...

As for the Midway, it looks like he was doing his job and protecting our Navy. I could care less if Jimmy Carter wasn't on board with it. The guy hated the military anyway. And hey, at least the American people received a new aircraft carrier, and it was TWO billion - not SEVEN billion. And to think, he didn't use that 2 billion to BUY VOTES. It was a legitimate cause that held absolutely NO political benefit to McCain, but DID benefit our military - you know, the same military DEMOCRATS have accused REPUBLICANS of not supporting with the 'gear they need.' Yeah, funny how that only applies when it''s politically convenient. :rolleyes;

Excel

10-14-2008, 01:37 PM

2 Billion in bought votes wouldnt get McCain within 50 electoral votes.

Gilpesh

10-14-2008, 01:38 PM

As for the Midway, it looks like he was doing his job and protecting our Navy.

Um... the only reason for it was PORK BARREL POLITICS.

And hey, at least the American people received a new aircraft carrier, and it was TWO billion - not SEVEN billion.

Inflation is a stinky monkey. Seven billion dollars in today's dollars. :whatever:

lazur

10-14-2008, 01:41 PM

Laz, John McCain was against ALL regulation. You realize the lack of regulation is why we are in such a mess, right? I would hope so, even John McCain does. He was just WRONG about the issue at the beginning, shocker, not the 1st time.

WRONG. Deregulation of FANNIE AND FREDDIE is what caused this mess, and it was the DEMOCRATS - NOT the Republicans - who REFUSED to regulate FANNIE AND FREDDIE.

Let's not rewrite history here, shall we?

Facts are facts, I dont wanna be here in 4 years listening to McCain do what he is doing now: making excuses for why he was wrong at the begining but should still be trusted.

Your 'facts' are wrong.

:hehe: Conservatives and their "trickle down" ideas :hehe:

:hehe:

Brosef how is fantasy land, must be nice living there. We are just now seeing the effects of the 6 years Bush was in office that he had a republican congress; all of their brilliant ideas have gotten us real far, right?

The mess we are in has NOTHING to do with Obama, you have no proof of that...if you do please show and dont say its over some gay affair or something

I'm not even going to respond to this other than to say that you're conveniently intermixing topics into one another and trying to pass it off as me being inaccurate. Your last paragraph made absolutely no sense at all, simply because you obviously do not have a handle on the facts as they've occurred, and since you're too enamored with 'party' to really care, then neither do I care to explain it to you.

lazur

10-14-2008, 01:43 PM

Um... the only reason for it was PORK BARREL POLITICS.

Says who, you? The person who wrote the article? Who said that?

Inflation is a stinky monkey. Seven billion dollars in today's dollars. :whatever:

LOL, nice try...

Excel

10-14-2008, 01:44 PM

Excel

10-14-2008, 01:45 PM

Says who, you? The person who wrote the article? Who said that?

LOL, nice try...

you cant even quote the right people :wow::wow:

Gilpesh

10-14-2008, 01:50 PM

Says who, you? The person who wrote the article? Who said that?

People who have researched the issue... :whatever:

But that's besides the point... it was an EARMARK... McCain says he is against EARMARKS... but when he wasn't in elected office... he wanted EARMARKS...

And seriously, you're not for using the inflation rate to make figures from the past comparable to figures in the present? Wow... spin much?

lazur

10-14-2008, 02:01 PM

People who have researched the issue... :whatever:

But that's besides the point... it was an EARMARK... McCain says he is against EARMARKS... but when he wasn't in elected office... he wanted EARMARKS...

I have a hard time calling the purchase of military equipment an 'earmark.' It's not wasteful spending and it's not being spent in order to buy votes.

And seriously, you're not for using the inflation rate to make figures from the past comparable to figures in the present? Wow... spin much?

It was 2 billion then - not 7 billion now. End of story.

lazur

10-14-2008, 02:02 PM

My facts are not wrong; from his views on the economy as late as September ("The fundementals are strong!") to the way he saw Iraq prior to Invasion ("We will be greeted as liberators","it will be fast and easy") the ONLY thing his record shows is McCain consistently being WRONG at the start of the issues.

Not what we need.

All politicians are wrong from time to time, just like Obama was on the surge, which had it gone his way would have cost more lives.

Not what we need.

spideyboy_1111

10-14-2008, 02:08 PM

LOL! I knew this would be your response to his post when I saw the sites he was linking to. You're like a trained parrot these days. :D

jag

o lordy, i know, republican's think any news site thats not CNN or in support of McCain is "liberal"

got i hate how the word liberal is thrown around with republicans as if its the plague, or as if your complete anarchy against the US. Which is equally ironic, because the person they treasure most, Jesus, was a friggin liberal.

Gilpesh

10-14-2008, 02:08 PM

I have a hard time calling the purchase of military equipment an 'earmark.' It's not wasteful spending and it's not being spent in order to buy votes.

Let's check the definition...

3.to set aside for a specific purpose, use, recipient, etc.: to earmark goods for export.

Ooooooooh, so it is still an earmark... like the earmarks that McCain says are wasting taxpayer money... and that if he is elected and finds them... YOU WILL KNOW THEIR NAMES.

First name on that list... John McCain in the 70's.

Also, the midway class carrier was outdated at the time... so it wasn't a very good purchase of military equipment.

It was 2 billion then - not 7 billion now. End of story.

Yes. Let's never make it so money now can be compared to money then...

Excel

10-14-2008, 02:10 PM

All politicians are wrong from time to time, just like Obama was on the surge, which had it gone his way would have cost more lives.

Not what we need.

No, but had we listened to Obama at the beginning instead of McCain, the problem wouldnt have existed.

Once again, McCain is wrong on something at the beginning and it costs us.

lazur

10-14-2008, 02:14 PM

No, but had we listened to Obama at the beginning instead of McCain, the problem wouldnt have existed.

Oh, sure, we should have listened to a civilian instead of nearly ALL of Congress, including Kerry, Clinton, Biden and every other Democrat who voted FOR the war resolution for Iraq...

Once again, McCain is wrong on something at the beginning and it costs us.

McCain isn't who made the decision to go into Iraq. It was Bush and virtually ALL of the politicians in the House and Senate, including McCain and most others. McCain's personal opinion of how it would go had NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on our going into Iraq. But I do love how you attempt to blame it ALL on one man with NONE of the blame also going to your own party's heroes.

Excel

10-14-2008, 02:15 PM

Barack was right, Macdaddy was wrong. Let me say again: Barack was right, Macdaddy was wrong. Let me say again: Barack was right, Macdaddy was wrong. Let me say again: Barack was right, Macdaddy was wrong. Let me say again: Barack was right, Macdaddy was wrong. Let me say again: Barack was right, Macdaddy was wrong. Let me say again: Barack was right, Macdaddy was wrong. Let me say again: Barack was right, Macdaddy was wrong. Let me say again: Barack was right, Macdaddy was wrong. Let me say again: Barack was right, Macdaddy was wrong.

Get it?

jaguarr

10-14-2008, 02:16 PM

Actually, I did visit the links.

And didn't actually debunk any of the information in it with...you know...like...facts.

jag

lazur

10-14-2008, 02:38 PM

Let's check the definition...

Ooooooooh, so it is still an earmark... like the earmarks that McCain says are wasting taxpayer money... and that if he is elected and finds them... YOU WILL KNOW THEIR NAMES.

First name on that list... John McCain in the 70's.

Also, the midway class carrier was outdated at the time... so it wasn't a very good purchase of military equipment.

Yes. Let's never make it so money now can be compared to money then...

Look, the only story you're going on is one that was specifically written to make McCain sound like he was engaged in 'wasteful earmark spending' when the reality of the situation is that the Commander of the Navy had a different opinion than did Carter, and McCain lent him his support to have the vessel replaced.

I did a Google search on the McCain/Midway connection to dive down and see if something exists OTHER than some liberal blogger giving his opinion, and found nothing.

So, while you can just jump to the conclusion that it was wasteful for McCain to be on the side of the military in replacing a pivotal US Aircraft Carrier, I'm going to go with common sense, which tells me that the carrier NEEDED to be replaced in order to continue to fulfill military missions. Unless you can find a legitimate story that explains how McCain was engaged in wasteful spending, I cannot consider the support of our military as 'earmark spending.'

lazur

10-14-2008, 02:40 PM

And didn't actually debunk any of the information in it with...you know...like...facts.

jag

I don't have the time to read four links full of liberal bias, just as you would not want to read four links full of conservative bias.

You are often citing people for not providing REAL sources of NEWS. So take your own advice and get off your high horse. It doesn't suit you.

The Senator

10-14-2008, 02:41 PM

Speaking of Barney Frank and corruption, what of his nine-year love affair with a senior executive (Herb Moses) at Fannie Mae? I suppose his protection of Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with that, right? :rolleyes:

Wow, way to abdicate responsibility for your false claims :up: