PDA

View Full Version : Barack Obama's radical associations including terrorists


GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 10:51 AM
Well if anyone has been paying attention this weekend Governor Palin accused Senator Obama of being friends with terrorists. The "mainstream" media is calling it a smear.

Some are even calling it racist:

In an analysis piece out today, AP writer Douglass K. Daniel slammed Palin’s recent shots on Obama’s past association with radical militant Bill Ayers as “ unsubstantiated and carried a racially-tinged subtext that John McCain himself may come to regret.”
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/05/palin-counters-ap-slam-the-associated-press-is-wrong/
-- I also have seen the article this blog talks about in my home paper.

Thing is Governor Palin is correct that Obama is associated with terrorists, radicals, etc. In fact she understated it, Obama has a pattern of associating with radical lunatics. People involved in voting fraud, terrorism, racists (referring to racism against whites and Jewish people), etc.

I've already talked about ACORN, but ACORN is just the tip of the iceberg.

The New York Times has been forced to acknowledge that Obama is more closely associated to Domestic Terrorist William Ayers than he admits.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

While the New York Times is still trying to downplay his associations, because he's an ultra-liberal Democrat, but the story still ended up on Page 1. In other words I'm flat out accusing the New York Times of still practicing dishonest journalism because they are still trying to cover up the depth of his association with the terrorist.

Thing is Fox News has been pointing out Senator Obama's association with Bill Ayers for about a year now, and the "mainstream" press is finally picking up on it.

So here is the question, do we want someone like this to be President of the United States, heck I wouldn't want anyone with all these associations like what he has on the city council, let alone President of the United States.

The Obama's campaign's response is to call it a racist attack, but I don't think this is racist to point out he's associated with a man that committed terrorist attacks.

Oh here's a Wallstreet Journal article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html

mimartin
10-06-2008, 11:34 AM
The "mainstream" media is calling it a smear.
Well if it was a bowl of poop, would you really expect the "mainstream" media to call it chocolate pudding. It is a smear and the media is calling it a smear. I fail to see the problem.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 11:36 AM
Well if it was a bowl of poop, would you really expect the "mainstream" media to call it chocolate pudding. It is a smear and the media is calling it a smear. I fail to see the problem.

I see it a problem because the media is outright lieing, and yes I'm accusing them of outright fraudulent journalism that's really the only way to describe it:
http://www.bucksright.com/kurtz-explodes-obamas-ayers-myth-1254

It sources the wsj and other sources, granted it's an opinions column, but the opinion is by a reputable source.

And remember Obama has lied about his associations to Ayers in the past.

The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming "guilt by association." Yet the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html

Another article:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/obama_lied_about_his_tight_lin.html

Remember Obama has lied about the associations.

For the record this is just one of three radical associations that I remember that begin with the letter "A". I've got a whole bunch of other associations to bring up still.

Q
10-06-2008, 11:50 AM
Well if it was a bowl of poop, would you really expect the "mainstream" media to call it chocolate pudding.
If it serves its political agenda, absolutely. ;)

I think that the funniest thing regarding the Weathermen is that the dumb****s actually blew themselves up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Village_townhouse_explosion). :lol: I don't think that cretinism is much of a defense against the charge of domestic terrorism, however.

Stupid hippies. :D

Yar-El
10-06-2008, 11:58 AM
re: Barack Obama's Radical Associations

Some people are concerned with his associations with -
Rev. Jeremiah Wright
ACORN
Bill Ayers
Tony Rezko
Rev. Al Sharpton
Obama's Father
Obama's Stepfather

Up until somewhere in the 1980s, Obama had a dual citizenship with Kenya and the United States. Some people find it awkward for this type of dual connection. So, what other associations does he have.


(Some news just got to my desk. I will be back in a few minutes. DOW just dropped below 10,000. Heading over to the thread now.)

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 12:01 PM
Okay, please refrain from swearing...

Anyways here's another radical association given:

Rashid Khalidi -- Member of the PLO when it was a on the terrorist watch list in the United States. (Oh and this guy is also associated to William Ayers)

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/obamas_good_friend_rashid_khal.html

The co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.

In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002.

Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, according to the Fund's website. According to tax filings, Obama received compensation of $6,000 per year for his service in 1999 and 2000.

Obama served on the Wood's Fund board alongside William C. Ayers, a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for bombing the U.S. Capitol in 1971.

Ayers, who still serves on the Woods Fund board, contributed $200 to Obama's senatorial campaign fund and has served on panels with Obama at numerous public speaking engagements. Ayers admitted to involvement in the bombings of U.S. governmental buildings in the 1970s. He is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

The $40,000 grant from Obama's Woods Fund to the AAAN constituted about a fifth of the Arab group's reported grants for 2001, according to tax filings obtained by WND. The $35,000 Woods Fund grant in 2002 also constituted about one-fifth of AAAN's reported grants for that year.

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57231

Astor
10-06-2008, 12:28 PM
Thing is Governor Palin is correct that Obama is associated with terrorists, radicals, etc. In fact she understated it, Obama has a pattern of associating with radical lunatics. People involved in voting fraud, terrorism, racists (referring to racism against whites and Jewish people), etc.

So he's not been hanging round with people who aren't whiter than white. So what? Associating is very different to actually taking part in these activities.

All I see here is Palin trying to shift focus from her abuse of power allegations.

Thing is Fox News has been pointing out Senator Obama's association with Bill Ayers for about a year now, and the "mainstream" press is finally picking up on it.

Hardly suprising no-one's taken any notice of it till now then. Fox is hardly a paragon of 'honest journalism'.

So here is the question, do we want someone like this to be President of the United States, heck I wouldn't want anyone with all these associations like what he has on the city council, let alone President of the United States.

Associations. Were he actually convicted, or proved to have taken part in terrorist activities, i'd probably feel the same.

The Obama's campaign's response is to call it a racist attack, but I don't think this is racist to point out he's associated with a man that committed terrorist attacks.

Again, Obama can hardly be held responsible for the actions of another person, which happened at a time when Obama was young.

Also, why should Obama holding a dual citizenship be an issue?

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 12:40 PM
So he's not been hanging round with people who aren't whiter than white. So what? Associating is very different to actually taking part in these activities.


That depends, if this is one association it's not a big deal, especially if he is honest and forthright about it. Furthermore, his radical associations interconnect and he's given them money while on a board that was just supposed to be funding legit education projects. Instead it was funding radical indoctrination, among other things.


All I see here is Palin trying to shift focus from her abuse of power allegations.

Uh huh, problem is if this were an unbiased investigation the investigators would look like fools because if the reason for firing that Safety officer is what they're saying it was for, the reason is not only legit but it is one that women would rally behind.
http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/tasergate-not-troopergate/

As it stands though there is stuff that supports Governor Palin's stated reasons for firing the man: (hesitate to use these sources but the second one has a pretty damning picture)
http://saberpoint.blogspot.com/2008/09/troopergate-dem-smear-job-of-palin.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/new_documents_released_in_troo.asp

It has a picture of the people trying to prosecute Governor Palin and they work for the Obama Campaign. So we have the judge and jury being members of a campaign that stands to gain from a conviction...


Hardly suprising no-one's taken any notice of it till now then. Fox is hardly a paragon of 'honest journalism'.


That's your opinion, I'm going to say in response that comparing their honesty to the other media outlets is insulting Fox News.


Associations. Were he actually convicted, or proved to have taken part in terrorist activities, i'd probably feel the same.


Again he lied about them and they interconnect, then there is a money trail.


Again, Obama can hardly be held responsible for the actions of another person, which happened at a time when Obama was young.


He can be held responsible for continuing to associate with a man that said on 9/11/01
"I do not regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough." -- Bill Ayers in a New York Times article 9/11/2001


Also, why should Obama holding a dual citizenship be an issue?

I'm wondering that too unless this involves Odinga?

Astor
10-06-2008, 12:47 PM
That depends, if this is one association it's not a big deal, especially if he is honest and forthright about it. Furthermore, his radical associations interconnect and he's given them money while on a board that was just supposed to be funding legit education projects. Instead it was funding radical indoctrination, among other things.

So, he's a terrorist for donating money that may have been spent inappropriately?

That's your opinion, I'm going to say in response that comparing their honesty to the other media outlets is insulting Fox News.

It's not just my opinion. It's the opinion of a lot of people. I'm not saying that your opinion isn't valid, however.

But you're right, it is insulting. To other news outlets.

He can be held responsible for continuing to associate with a man that said on 9/11/01 <quote>

No, he can't. He doesn't control what other people say, and the only words he should be held accountable for are his own.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 12:56 PM
So, he's a terrorist for donating money that may have been spent inappropriately?


I didn't say he was a terrorist, I'm saying he either had bad judgement or he agrees with their viewpoints. Fact is he was in charge of the money on that foundation, so that would make it his responsibility to make sure the money is spent appropriately.

I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's like our current President in the fact he has a lot of bad judgement when it comes to people. Then again, I'm probably insulting President Bush there.


It's not just my opinion. It's the opinion of a lot of people. I'm not saying that your opinion isn't valid, however.

But you're right, it is insulting. To other news outlets.


Fox News wasn't the one to come up with a story that people in the National Enquirer would have been fired over for lack of sources, and it being nothing more than a Hit Piece.

Fox News wasn't the one that aired that bogus story that CBS did, using "evidence" that was clearly bogus because the font style didn't exist during the time in question because it was a computer style font for a modern printer.

Fox News wasn't the one that sat on this story for over a year, so it's insulting Fox News to compare them to the mainstream media.

Fox News wasn't the one to use bogus pictures to try to accuse Israel of deliberately targeting civilians in the Israeli/Lebanon War in 2006.


No, he can't. He doesn't control what other people say, and the only words he should be held accountable for are his own.

It does illustrate bad judgement to associate with them even after they make statements like that.

Astor
10-06-2008, 01:03 PM
I didn't say he was a terrorist,

Oh, but you have, throughout this thread and a few others. You haven't actually said he was, but you've basically condemned him as one, taking every opportunity to villify him for his 'radical associations'.

It does illustrate bad judgement to associate with them even after they make statements like that.

Everybody makes mistakes. He's free to keep whatever company he chooses. Or, are you implying that McCain is infallible?

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 01:24 PM
Oh, but you have, throughout this thread and a few others. You haven't actually said he was, but you've basically condemned him as one, taking every opportunity to villify him for his 'radical associations'.


I don't really need to villify him, the fact his associations all interconnect does that all by itself. Especially since he lied about the associations, if he was straight up and honest it would have blown over rather quickly.



Everybody makes mistakes. He's free to keep whatever company he chooses. Or, are you implying that McCain is infallible?

I haven't implied McCain is infallible, difference is though that McCain has a habit of being honest about things.

If you look at the Keating Five situation you'll note he was the only Republican in the bunch, so the Democrats had to charge him otherwise it would be a Democrat scandal. This is after the Prosecutor (whom is a Democrat) recommended McCain not even be charged because there was nothing there.

McCain also testified against Keating in the civil trial where people were suing to try to get their money back.

McCain was straight up and honest about the situation, furthermore the Keating situation was about 20 years ago at least, compared to Obama's associations that he broke off after they are made public and he lies about them.

While McCain does have lobbyists on his campaign, he has a history of going after them when they do illegal activities. Rick Davis apparently was getting money from the Banks McCain was going after saying they needed more regulations.

Well if they were paying Mr. Davis to convince McCain to stop going after them, they should either sue Mr. Davis for simply pocketing the money and walking off, or Mr. Davis tried and McCain seeing corruption (which is like waving a red flag in front of a Bull) was determined to root out that corruption.

Thing is during part of that time Senator Obama was taking kickbacks from the banks Senator McCain was trying to regulate them concerning the subprime mortgages and actually fix this mess.

Furthermore, McCain also hires a lot of ex-lobbyists, like the CIA and FBI hire hackers, sometimes the best way to catch a lobbyist doing something illegal is hire an ex-lobbyist.

Is McCain a saint, I don't think he is, but unlike he doesn't associate with terrorists, he isn't a member of a church for 20 years whose reverend is a racist and hates America...


Oh and found more about Obama's Ayers connection:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-45A6I-N5I&eurl=http://ace.mu.nu/archives/273431.php
(starts off with Fox News interview then goes to a video that was recently found).

Web Rider
10-06-2008, 02:31 PM
re: Barack Obama's Radical Associations

Some people are concerned with his associations with -
Rev. Jeremiah Wright
ACORN
Bill Ayers
Tony Rezko
Rev. Al Sharpton
Obama's Father
Obama's Stepfather

Up until somewhere in the 1980s, Obama had a dual citizenship with Kenya and the United States. Some people find it awkward for this type of dual connection. So, what other associations does he have.


(Some news just got to my desk. I will be back in a few minutes. DOW just dropped below 10,000. Heading over to the thread now.)

If people are concerned about Obama's associations with his own father and step-father, they really need to get a life. I don't have any choice in who my father was just as Bush has no choice that his grandpappy did business with the Nazis.

Does that make Bush a Nazi? No it does not.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 03:26 PM
If people are concerned about Obama's associations with his own father and step-father, they really need to get a life. I don't have any choice in who my father was just as Bush has no choice that his grandpappy did business with the Nazis.


I don't really care about Obama's family associations he didn't have a choice there, I'm concerned about the associations he's made as an adult.

Astor
10-07-2008, 12:08 PM
I'm aware i've already replied in this regard, but I would like to point out some things.

"I do not regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough."

That's a misquote. Also, he happens to write something on the day of a terrorist attack, so that means he condones it?

If you'd done some more research you'd have found Ayers wrote this a few days after the attack...

"Today we are witnessing crimes against humanity on our own shores on an unthinkable scale, and I fear that we may soon see more innocent people in other parts of the world dying in response."

Now, please take note that i'm not defending anything he may have done in the past, as a member of the Weathermen, but your claim that he supported the 9/11 attack is grossly innacurate.

GarfieldJL
10-07-2008, 12:18 PM
Uh huh, where is your source?

Astor
10-07-2008, 12:26 PM
Uh huh, where is your source?

Bill Ayers Wikipedia Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#Academic_career)

But of course, it'll no doubt be biased against conservatives, or outright lying...

EDIT:

Also, let's look at the sources section of that article, referring to the interview from which you quoted:

NB that although the interview was published on 9/11, it was completed prior to that and cannot be properly construed as a reaction to the events of that day.

Arcesious
10-07-2008, 12:52 PM
And it's all ending in a political smear contest... This shows that they're both getting desperate.

ET Warrior
10-07-2008, 02:20 PM
I find it interesting that every single non-partisan fact checking organization that has looked into these allegations has declared them false or insignificant, yet you continue to perpetuate them as though they hold some true meaning. (Probably because your candidate is so far behind in the polls you need to ramp up the smear campaign in a desperate attempt to get some of those votes).

Inyri
10-07-2008, 02:53 PM
And it's all ending in a political smear contest... This shows that they're both getting desperate.Nah, that's just politics as usual.

GarfieldJL
10-07-2008, 03:38 PM
Also, let's look at the sources section of that article, referring to the interview from which you quoted:

Woah stop, just stop right there, I posted up an actual copy of the interview piece, you are quoting an analysis of that interview. The actual interview trumps a talking head when it comes to what they said in the interview.


Anyways here is the logical argument that makes Governor Palin's argument that Senator Obama is friends with terrorists valid.

1. Senator Obama's campaign Manager at the time this was brought up a while ago said that the two were certainly friendly.

2. Obama started his state senate campaign in the guy's house.

3. The served on boards together

4. Barack Obama met his wife via introductions by Bill Ayers and his wife.


So we've established it's more than them just happening to be in the same neighborhood.

Evidence suggests that Senator Obama is friends with William Ayers.

William Ayers is a known terrorist.

Therefore evidence suggests that Barack Obama is friends with a terrorist. That makes Governor Palin's accusations at the very least have merit.


The big thing here though is that Barack Obama has repeatedly changed his story and outright lied about his association with William Ayers.

And it looks like the McCain Campaign has hit a nerve considering how the Obama campaign immediately reacted and started their attempts to go after the Keating Five situation from nearly 20 years ago when McCain had just started his first senate term.

Inyri
10-07-2008, 03:42 PM
Even if he was friends with a terrorist, that doesn't mean he knew the man was a terrorist, supports terrorists, or is a terrorist himself. So what exactly are you trying to get at?

Astor
10-07-2008, 03:49 PM
Woah stop, just stop right there, I posted up an actual copy of the interview piece, you are quoting an analysis of that interview. The actual interview trumps a talking head when it comes to what they said in the interview.

You claimed that Ayers was talking in reference to the 9/11 attacks. I am merely pointing out that the interview was conducted before 9/11.

2. Obama started his state senate campaign in the guy's house.

Proof, other than the fact that Ayers donated $200 towards it?

4. Barack Obama met his wife via introductions by Bill Ayers and his wife.

Proof? If you had any, you'd know he met his wife while they worked at the same law firm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Obama

So we've established it's more than them just happening to be in the same neighborhood.

You haven't proved anything. I've never once denied that he knows him, I've been saying that simply knowing someone doesn't make them guilty by association.

William Ayers is a known terrorist.

Was.

Barack Obama was a child when Ayers was a political activist. Or does that not matter?

And it looks like the McCain Campaign has hit a nerve considering how the Obama campaign immediately reacted and started their attempts to go after the Keating Five situation from nearly 20 years ago when McCain had just started his first senate term.

I don't see what's so different about that and claiming that Obama's entire Senate run is sponsored by Terrorism.

Achilles
10-07-2008, 03:51 PM
Come on Inyri, don't you usually have someone vet the people that you meet before you decide to associate with them?

Inyri
10-07-2008, 03:56 PM
Sure, but I'm not naive enough to think that being friends with someone who was once a radical makes that person exactly the same as his friend. I try to base my opinions on something more than that.

GarfieldJL
10-07-2008, 03:58 PM
Even if he was friends with a terrorist, that doesn't mean he knew the man was a terrorist, supports terrorists, or is a terrorist himself. So what exactly are you trying to get at?

He may not have at first, but you can't legitimately argue that he didn't find out. He also continued to associate with the man even after knowing that the guy is a terrorist, and then he lied about it. Especially since Ayers has even wrote books about his "Weather Underground" days.

If he had been upfront about this and said flat out he hadn't known about Ayers' past, and had moved to disassociate with the man, it would go thru the news for a few days that Obama had made an error in judgement, but he didn't.

Instead, he lied about the association, and has made attempts to cover the association up. That's what implies that there is even more there than what we've seen thus far. In all honesty it would be a lot harder to convince people now that he didn't know about this until it was brought to his attention, because he wasn't up front and honest to begin with.

Unlike McCain's Keating scandal, when McCain met Keating, the man hadn't been charged of any wrong doing so McCain might not have known what all was going on. William Ayers had been charged in the past for domestic terrorism, he managed to get out of it due to a legal technicality, though the man has repeatedly bragged about his terrorist acts. So here we have Senator Obama meeting with William Ayers where the information of this nut's terrorist acts is known (heck his wife was convicted for goodness sakes, though she's out and about as a professor now too).

Barack Obama is then employed by Bill Ayers, he did speeches with the man, etc. all the while the information concerning Ayers was still out there. And then when asked about his associations with the man, he lies about it.

Just like he's lied about the depth of his associations with Reverend Wright, which he got the title of his book from one of Wright's sermons.

So the issue isn't just that these associations are there, it's also the fact he's lied about them.

Rogue Nine
10-07-2008, 04:01 PM
Woah stop, just stop right there, I posted up an actual copy of the interview piece, you are quoting an analysis of that interview. The actual interview trumps a talking head when it comes to what they said in the interview.
The video would be far more credible as a source if it wasn't spliced together with non-sourced statements on slides that make claims against Obama that the video does not support.

1. Senator Obama's campaign Manager at the time this was brought up a while ago said that the two were certainly friendly.
Source, please. There are several articles that say Obama is certainly not friends with Bill Ayers (one example (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5667094)).

2. Obama started his state senate campaign in the guy's house.
Again, may we have a source, please? In the same article I linked above, it says Obama attended a fundraiser at the Ayers' house. It doesn't say he started it there.

3. The served on boards together
Okay, so what? This proves nothing of their alleged 'friendship'. People who serve on the same boards together do not necessarily have to be friends.

4. Barack Obama met his wife via introductions by Bill Ayers and his wife.
Where did you hear this? Because according to Michelle Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002573_2.html), she met Barack at the law firm they worked at, which makes sense, since they're both lawyers.

So we've established it's more than them just happening to be in the same neighborhood.
No, you haven't established anything other than the fact you're willing to believe all the eminently biased crap on YouTube about Obama.

Evidence suggests that Senator Obama is friends with William Ayers.
What evidence? You have yet to provide any concrete proof of this claim.

William Ayers is a known terrorist.
Was a known terrorist (who also happened to turn himself in peacefully to authorities). He's a respected professor at a prestigious university now.

Therefore evidence suggests that Barack Obama is friends with a terrorist. That makes Governor Palin's accusations at the very least have merit.
:rolleyes:

The big thing here though is that Barack Obama has repeatedly changed his story and outright lied about his association with William Ayers.
Again, where's the proof?

And it looks like the McCain Campaign has hit a nerve considering how the Obama campaign immediately reacted and started their attempts to go after the Keating Five situation from nearly 20 years ago when McCain had just started his first senate term.
Politics is dirty, what can I say? :p

GarfieldJL
10-07-2008, 04:33 PM
The video would be far more credible as a source if it wasn't spliced together with non-sourced statements on slides that make claims against Obama that the video does not support.


It shows you the key words for the searches though, it's rather hard to source everything in a video, however I have provided some connections in the past.


Source, please. There are several articles that say Obama is certainly not friends with Bill Ayers (one example (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5667094)).

Here is one, that shows he was more closely associated than he admits, but it's more extensive than what CNN is admitting.
http://www.webloggin.com/cnn-admits-that-obama-lied-about-ayers/

another link: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=44114731&searchid=b9906e30-7bd2-4c43-8f6e-6785b31b13c8

another link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNkclbvuc9w


Again, may we have a source, please? In the same article I linked above, it says Obama attended a fundraiser at the Ayers' house. It doesn't say he started it there.


I've found some more sources see above.



Okay, so what? This proves nothing of their alleged 'friendship'. People who serve on the same boards together do not necessarily have to be friends.


Uh huh, fundraisers at Ayer's home...


Where did you hear this? Because according to Michelle Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002573_2.html), she met Barack at the law firm they worked at, which makes sense, since they're both lawyers.


Ayers' wife also worked at the law firm just she couldn't be a lawyer due to her conviction, and I heard about all this nearly two years ago.


No, you haven't established anything other than the fact you're willing to believe all the eminently biased crap on YouTube about Obama.


When I find legitimate sources that corroborate the YouTube videos I believe them.


Was a known terrorist (who also happened to turn himself in peacefully to authorities). He's a respected professor at a prestigious university now.


Yeah an unrepentant terrorist as a professor.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B 63
''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago.

And this is a guy Obama calls a respected mainstream member of society...

Astor
10-07-2008, 04:39 PM
Ayers' wife also worked at the law firm just she couldn't be a lawyer due to her conviction, and I heard about all this nearly two years ago.

Circumstantial at best. I work with someone who bought a new car. Does that mean i'm responsible for it? Not likely.

Yeah an unrepentant terrorist as a professor.

Some interesting tidbits in that source referring to things you've already quoted:

Mr. Ayers, who in 1970 was said to have summed up the Weatherman philosophy as: ''Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at,'' is today distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. And he says he doesn't actually remember suggesting that rich people be killed or that people kill their parents, but ''it's been quoted so many times I'm beginning to think I did,'' he said. ''It was a joke about the distribution of wealth.''

Once again you've distorted the facts to fit your viewpoint.

GarfieldJL
10-07-2008, 04:48 PM
Yeah, I think I'll believe the former FBI informant that Sean Hannity Interviewed whom infilitrated the Weather Underground over Bill Ayers as far as credibility.

Rogue Nine
10-07-2008, 05:08 PM
It shows you the key words for the searches though, it's rather hard to source everything in a video, however I have provided some connections in the past.
If it's a source I have to do my own footwork to research, then it's not really a source, is it? And you've provided nothing but slanted conjecture and mudslinging in the past.

Here is one, that shows he was more closely associated than he admits, but it's more extensive than what CNN is admitting.
http://www.webloggin.com/cnn-admits-that-obama-lied-about-ayers/
"More extensive" in this case means "with additional biased commentary and contrived conclusions."

I'm sorry, find a better source than that.

another link: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=44114731&searchid=b9906e30-7bd2-4c43-8f6e-6785b31b13c8
Nowhere does this link suggest that Obama and Ayers are friends, merely that they worked together on the CAC, knowledge which is already well circulated.

another link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNkclbvuc9w
Yet another biased smear video that takes things massively out of context. Please stop relying on YouTube videos, they have little to no credibility whatsoever.

I've found some more sources see above.
None of those sources gave reliable information as to whether or not Obama started his campaign at Ayers' house, so please try again.

Uh huh, fundraisers at Ayer's home...
Doesn't prove they're friends. :p


Ayers' wife also worked at the law firm just she couldn't be a lawyer due to her conviction,
Right, but did Ayers' wife set Barack and Michelle Obama up on a date? Nowhere does it say that she did, so your claim of her doing that is false.

and I heard about all this nearly two years ago.
From where, the Tooth Fairy? :rolleyes:


When I find legitimate sources that corroborate the YouTube videos I believe them.
We have yet to see any of these 'legitimate' sources. Please produce them.

Yeah an unrepentant terrorist as a professor.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B 63
Well, clearly the board of directors at the University of Chicago screwed up, you should go to them and show them this article right now so he can be fired for being a terrorist.


And this is a guy Obama calls a respected mainstream member of society...
Please find me a source for this that is clearly not a slanderous conservative website or a slanderous conservative YouTube video. Thanks.

Corinthian
10-07-2008, 05:31 PM
So all you have to do is claim it's biased and you don't have to refute it at all? That's cool.

Rogue Nine
10-07-2008, 05:38 PM
Uh, when the source draws its own contrived and slanted conclusions about what it reports rather that just stating the facts, then yeah, it's biased.

I want a definitive, unbiased source that says "Barack Obama considers Bill Ayers a friend." If it's so obvious that he is, why is it so hard to come up with a reliable source?

Corinthian
10-07-2008, 06:34 PM
There's no such thing as an unbiased source. Everyone has an opinion.

mimartin
10-07-2008, 06:41 PM
There's no such thing as an unbiased source. Everyone has an opinion.However, adding that opinion to the news story is optional.

Achilles
10-07-2008, 06:45 PM
Sure, but I'm not naive enough to think that being friends with someone who was once a radical makes that person exactly the same as his friend. I try to base my opinions on something more than that.I was being sarcastic :xp:

Inyri
10-07-2008, 06:55 PM
I must've misread. Think everyone's serious these days. :p

Achilles
10-07-2008, 07:03 PM
It's okay :)

I did think it slightly humorous that you took my comment at face value considering my avatar...and my signature :D

Inyri
10-07-2008, 07:03 PM
I know you're pro-Obama, but that's no reason to believe you (or anyone else) can't be objective. :xp:

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-07-2008, 07:12 PM
http://www.webloggin.com/cnn-admits-that-obama-lied-about-ayers/a) It's a ****ing blog.
b) http://www.webloggin.com/favicon.ico

another link: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=44114731&searchid=b9906e30-7bd2-4c43-8f6e-6785b31b13c8You just linked to a video that said Obama was 8 at the time Ayers was with the Weather Underground.

another link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNkclbvuc9wHey look a video with a bunch of Republicans talking about how horrible Ayers is and how Obama lives down the street from him and saw him at parties for education reform a few times.

Yeah an unrepentant terrorist as a professor.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B 63


And this is a guy Obama calls a respected mainstream member of society...At this point in time, he kinda is. He advocates education reform and holds parties/fundraisers for it and is a professor at a respectable university.


Also Ayers gave $200 to Obama's campaign http://lucasforums.com/picture.php?albumid=16&pictureid=2069

GarfieldJL
10-07-2008, 07:13 PM
Uh, when the source draws its own contrived and slanted conclusions about what it reports rather that just stating the facts, then yeah, it's biased.


http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/06/videos-the-ayers-connection/

That has videos in it with Obama's campaign, look if there isn't anything to my statements the Obama Campaign wouldn't be all over protesting it.


I want a definitive, unbiased source that says "Barack Obama considers Bill Ayers a friend." If it's so obvious that he is, why is it so hard to come up with a reliable source?

Because finding a source that isn't biased one way or the other is practically impossible these days. Seriously can you provide a reputable source that would disprove me.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/10/07/mitchell-ayers-distraction-gibbs-obama-didnt-know-he-was-terrorist

Another Article:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Ax_on_Ayers.html
"Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school," he said. "They're certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together."

That is present tense, not past tense which even then is stretching.

As much as I don't care for the British Media:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/2008/feb/26/obamaandbillayers
Ayers' son Malik is roughly my age (27), his son Zayd is three years older, and Rhodes Scholar Chesa Boudin, Ayers and wife Bernadine Dohrn's foster son, is also roughly my age.

I know this because I went to summer camp with Malik and Chesa when we were little boys, at Ramapo Country Day Camp right across the Hudson from New York City. Ayers held a teaching post at Columbia that year.


Obama's daughters are ages 6 and 9 respectively.

Article with some relevance dealing with another Radical Association which ties back to Bill Ayers:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/another-close-obama-associate-is-caught.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/obama-mccain-po.html

http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-ayers-schools-for-radicals.html


Another Article which is accusing the Associated Press of outright lieing:
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/ap-lies-about-obamas-red-mentor/


These articles quite frankly are no less biased than the left wing mainstream media.

Astor
10-07-2008, 07:21 PM
Article with some relevance dealing with another Radical Association which ties back to Bill Ayers:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/another-close-obama-associate-is-caught.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/obama-mccain-po.html

http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-ayers-schools-for-radicals.html

Once again, they're all just dead-set on smearing Obama's campaign.

Another Article which is accusing the Associated Press of outright lieing:
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/ap-lies-about-obamas-red-mentor/

Accusations? Can they actually be proven?

These articles quite frankly are no less biased than the left wing mainstream media.

That's because they're the right-wing mainstream media.

GarfieldJL
10-07-2008, 07:25 PM
So let me get this straight articles that link to videos of Obama's campaign manager finally admitting to Obama knowing Ayers and changing his story isn't a valid news source?

ET Warrior
10-07-2008, 09:06 PM
look if there isn't anything to my statements the Obama Campaign wouldn't be all over protesting it.You're right. It only makes sense to sit back and let your opponent call you a terrorist without stepping up and calling them a liar. :rolleyes:

Web Rider
10-07-2008, 10:49 PM
You're right. It only makes sense to sit back and let your opponent call you a terrorist without stepping up and calling them a liar. :rolleyes:

what was it called during the Kerry campaign? Swiftboating?

Achilles
10-08-2008, 12:14 AM
I think "getting swiftboated" would be more accurate. :)

Jae Onasi
10-08-2008, 02:27 AM
If I hear Hannity say "unrepentant terrorist" one more time, I'll either barf or turn it into a drinking game. We'll all be plastered in 12 minutes or so.


only for those of legal age of course

I want to play! :D - Cz

Come on over, I'll bring out the 151 rum. :lol: --Jae

Totenkopf
10-08-2008, 03:32 AM
Well, if we hear either candidate drone on about "change", we'll be plastered even faster. ;) The more things change.........

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 11:30 AM
You're right. It only makes sense to sit back and let your opponent call you a terrorist without stepping up and calling them a liar. :rolleyes:

They said he pals around with a terrorist, last time I checked Bill Ayers and his wife are terrorists and he's associated with them. So there is something there, so if there wasn't any more there Obama should just come out and explain honestly what was going on. Problem is he hasn't been honest about it, he's out and out lied about it.

If I hear Hannity say "unrepentant terrorist" one more time, I'll either barf or turn it into a drinking game. We'll all be plastered in 12 minutes or so.


Thing is Sean Hannity has been pointing this out for 23 months, nearly two years. At first people thought he'd lost it, but as people have done their research, they've found that Sean was telling the truth, something I suspected for a while.

I've read a few books by Sean Hannity, he has a tendency to source things to the extreme, at least three sources per accusation that he makes, sometimes all the way up to twelve sources or more. The sources were local papers, public records, etc. He doesn't make accusations unless he has things to back it up.

Jae Onasi
10-08-2008, 12:26 PM
Well, if we hear either candidate drone on about "change", we'll be plastered even faster. ;) The more things change.........
:lol:

@Garfield--I know he's found sources for Ayers. However, in 23 months you'd figure he'd be able to at least find a different adjective now and then.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 12:33 PM
:lol:

@Garfield--I know he's found sources for Ayers. However, in 23 months you'd figure he'd be able to at least find a different adjective now and then.

Jae, he's paired up with a Liberal that is in denial that Obama was even associated with Bill Ayers.

Anyways this is just 1 of 3 bad associations that I've heard of that begin with the letter "A". I haven't even gotten started about the others.

ET Warrior
10-11-2008, 05:18 AM
Just the facts, then (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html)

Achilles
10-11-2008, 05:25 AM
Now that McCain is pulling the plug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf6YKOkfFsE) on his own rhetoric, I wonder if his advocates will begin doing the same.

True_Avery
10-11-2008, 06:06 AM
Now that McCain is pulling the plug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf6YKOkfFsE) on his own rhetoric, I wonder if his advocates will begin doing the same.
There is the McCain I used to have respect for.

Its amazing what a presidential campaign and pressure from the far side of your party can do to you. Personally, I feel sorry for both of them, as I think they are both pretty respectable men for Presidential candidates.

KinchyB
10-11-2008, 12:54 PM
Now that McCain is pulling the plug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf6YKOkfFsE) on his own rhetoric, I wonder if his advocates will begin doing the same.

Doubtful...they tend to cling to whatever hope, smear, or lie that they can. No matter how many holes are in the story or leaps of faith need to be taken they are there and willing. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the process is... create a fabricated story... give it to our friends at fox news... let the people run with it.

Oh well, moot point now. I can already see the celebration shots as Obama is announced the next pres of the U.S.!! :D

Achilles
10-11-2008, 02:24 PM
We'll see. It will be easier for me to believe that this isn't just another political stunt if the attack ads start coming down as well. And at that point I'll believe the campaign is truly over (because there is no way McCain is going to make up months worth of ground on the issues in a few weeks).

Yar-El
10-11-2008, 03:17 PM
Election history has also shown another side. Michael Ducacus looked great on television, and the media was in complete love with the guy. Everything seemed to be going in his direction, but the majority ended up voting for George Bush. Polls and media groups could end up having this whole thing backwards.

Adavardes
10-11-2008, 03:40 PM
Quite frankly, this is a non-issue. Use your common sense, people. Obama may have known a domestic terrorist more than an aquaintence. I'm not going to say that is an absolute fact, because there's no proof supporting that the Obamas and the Ayers have been to family picnics together, but even if they have, this is meaningless tripe thrown out to distract voters from the real issues.

I have a lot of friends that are conservatives. Do I agree with them? No. Do I share their views? No. Do I think they couldn't be more erroneous on more than one occasion? Absolutely. But they're still my friends. It's the same thing with this Obama's church nonsense. There's something called separation of church and state, where religion should never hold leighway over a decision for the good of the people due to freedom of religion. To be a good leader, the president has to be unbiased, so as to best represent the whole of the United State citizenship. And Obama, to me, is intelligent enough to see that. McCain supporters have called him elitist before for being smarter than them, so clearly, they think he's pretty intelligent too.

Obama's policies in no way reflect this domestic terrorist's political views. To me, that's enough for me to say "shut your cakeholes" to all those republican voters out there, because you cannot pin a person down to his associates. Obama is not a terrorist, now let's get over it, move on, and focus on policy. Or perhaps the whole stock market going down the ****ter thing. Let's try to fix that, mmk?

Jeff
10-11-2008, 05:11 PM
Now that McCain is pulling the plug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf6YKOkfFsE) on his own rhetoric, I wonder if his advocates will begin doing the same.I respect him a lot for doing this. His campaign has been nothing but attacking Obama instead of promoting himself recently. It is pretty much over for McCain so it is good to see he can at least respect his opponent.

Achilles
10-11-2008, 06:07 PM
I wish I could agree with this sentiment. He proclaimed quite vocally that he was going to run a respectful campaign and then didn't. Call me cynical, but I believe that the only reason we're seeing this now is that his internal polling numbers indicated that his MO was backfiring. No one held a gun to his head and forced him to lie and then turn around and lie about lying. His own commentary shows that this wasn't some case of the campaign underlings hijacking his good name. So again, I consider this to be nothing more than a political stunt and I'll have a better indication of how far he's going to take it when I see the negative TV ads come down. Because right now all I hear are words.

Jeff
10-11-2008, 06:37 PM
That is true, and I agree that overall his campaign was definitely much more attacking than it was telling how good he is. I guess just because he said all that at a rally where it wasn't part of a speech and was directly responding to the crowd on the spot makes me think it was sincere. Or even if it wasn't, he made it appear to be and I'm sure that's hard enough.

Jae Onasi
10-11-2008, 07:14 PM
Expecting the candidates to always say something positive about the other isn't going to happen and is unrealistic. Obama's said his share of negative things, too--all the candidates do it because it's proven effective with voters. How McCain said what he said when defending Obama, along with the words he used and his body language indicate to me that he was sincere. You can argue that McCain was just acting, but I think that's ascribing negative motives where there are none.

El Sitherino
10-11-2008, 08:26 PM
I wish I could agree with this sentiment. He proclaimed quite vocally that he was going to run a respectful campaign and then didn't. Call me cynical, but I believe that the only reason we're seeing this now is that his internal polling numbers indicated that his MO was backfiring. No one held a gun to his head and forced him to lie and then turn around and lie about lying. His own commentary shows that this wasn't some case of the campaign underlings hijacking his good name. So again, I consider this to be nothing more than a political stunt and I'll have a better indication of how far he's going to take it when I see the negative TV ads come down. Because right now all I hear are words.

I dunno, after seeing him practically snatch that mic out of that crazed woman's hands I'd say he had a moment of sincerity and we got to see a bit of the real McCain.

It's only too bad we couldn't see this McCain the whole time, he used to be a very respectable and honorable man. Granted he is a politician, but even on that standard he was a generally decent individual within this stance.

Yar-El
10-11-2008, 08:31 PM
Obama's policies in no way reflect this domestic terrorist's political views. To me, that's enough for me to say "shut your cakeholes" to all those republican voters out there, because you cannot pin a person down to his associates. Obama is not a terrorist, now let's get over it, move on, and focus on policy. Or perhaps the whole stock market going down the ****ter thing. Let's try to fix that, mmk? I ended up reporting this post, but none of the moderators (or super moderators) seem to care. We have an issue of bias thread moderation, and this is an example of such an act. I wanted this to be dealt with in private, but all the reports have gone on without notice. I just saw four moderators walk into this thread, (plus they read the report), and all they did was walk away. You people had an opportunity to show that your adults, and you ended up leaving this post without comment.

We're not on 24/7. I haven't even seen the report so I haven't had a chance to address it, and I have had limited internet access while at work. I've been working the last 3 days and have other family responsibilities, as do the other moderators here. Please give us some _time_ to address it before accusing us of bias--a few hours isn't always long enough. In addition, we may not always agree with what someone reports--if you have an issue like this you need to bring it up in feedback or in the other thread we have on moderation instead of derailing this thread with that. --Jae

Adavardes, I welcome you to the forums. I have never met you before, and I'm glad you have joined up with us. Blasting out one paticular group is pretty harsh. Republicans and Democrats both have issues. Is Obama guilty of association? Yes. Is Obama guilty of anything more, such as full involvement? We haven't seen any evidence at the moment; however, there is also no evidence to contradict such assumptions. Obama does have a history of being involved with individuals of questionable background. McCain also has some ghosts under the bed. Obama's affiliations are very much important. Why? We need to understand the man behind the slogons and bright lights.

We have to prevent this from happening here: Religion in Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany#Messianic_aspects_of_Nazi sm.3F). We could very well be talking about McCain in this same manner, but we already know about his beliefs and connections. Understanding Obama's connections is just as important. I want to respect the guy, but I can't do so while I know nothing about him. Obama's experiences are limited, so we don't have a full political resume. It is very important to know about both canadates, so that our future is filled with freedom, security, and prosperity for all.

What beliefs did Obama take with him from learning Islam?
What beliefs did he adapt from Christianity?
What is his connection to radical movements that agree with Rev. Wright?
What is his connection to ACORN, did he do other things beside being a lawyer?
Did he also share in the activities of Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers?
How much of an impact did his father and step father have on his life?
Who is this man?

I know he has information everywhere, but who is the real Borrack Obama? Barry Obama?

El Sitherino
10-11-2008, 08:45 PM
If you disagree with what someone feels something makes them feel like saying, then debate them. There was no direct reference that the statement was directed at any and all republicans. I gathered from it the poster was speaking more about those people at the rallies calling Obama a terrorist
Which you Yar-El have not yet done. Ergo, you're not included in the party that should "Shut it's cakeholes"


PS: Please do not remove a moderators edit.

Yar-El
10-11-2008, 08:46 PM
PS: Please do not remove a moderators edit. What do you mean? I didn't see any notes. I would have left them there.

Nevermind, Jae just edited the post.

True_Avery
10-11-2008, 08:47 PM
I ended up reporting this post, but none of the moderators (or super moderators) seem to care.
The mods have their hands full with the BS Kavars has been spilling out lately due to this election.

How about everyone takes a chill pill on all of this bias finger pointing and just let things go? They are moderators, but they aren't omnipresent and if they did their job to the 100% mark they would have closed most of these threads. Be glad you all are even still allowed to keep debating the election after how many warnings have already been given out.

Its election season. People are going to get riled up, and there isn't a lot everyone can do about that. The mods, for the most part, seem to be coming in here and debating with you. Instead of treating them like some kind of dictator, why don't you all treat them like any other member debating you? You all seem to take the fact they are moderators to mean they are that much easier to attack for expressing their opinion.

If someones comment bothers you, report it and move on. If it doesn't get attended to in due time, then ignore the poster and keep discussing with the people willing to have a mature debate with you.

Sure, he threw sand at you. You could throw sand back, run to the teacher, or just walk away and find a new person to play with.

And this isn't directed at you, conservatives, liberals, rights, lefts, or any of the other silly labels that are being thrown around.

This is to everyone here...

Please, take a break and chill out. Kavars is turning less and less into "friendly debate" and more and more into the Senate.

Yar-El
10-11-2008, 09:28 PM
Sorry for my outburst earlier. Its not like me to just become so vocal. I will just have to disagree to agree. You people are still nice folks. I just wish there wasn't such a loud liberal group here.

Yar

GarfieldJL
10-11-2008, 09:41 PM
Its election season. People are going to get riled up, and there isn't a lot everyone can do about that. The mods, for the most part, seem to be coming in here and debating with you. Instead of treating them like some kind of dictator, why don't you all treat them like any other member debating you? You all seem to take the fact they are moderators to mean they are that much easier to attack for expressing their opinion.


This is far worse than a typical election, to give you a little straight talk this election could determine whether we get to keep our rights. Obama is tied to some pretty scary people and groups, all of them radicals. Heck they are also interconnected and at least one group is well known for committing voter fraud.

He is also not only associated with, but has worked with at least 2 unrepentent terrorists.

Burnadean Dorn (sp?) ring any bells, that's Bill Ayers' wife.

Seriously, Senator Obama's connections are extremely scary, and for me a Republican whom can't stand Hillary Clinton to rather have her in the White House is saying quite a bit.

True_Avery
10-11-2008, 10:30 PM
This is far worse than a typical election, to give you a little straight talk this election could determine whether we get to keep our rights. Obama is tied to some pretty scary people and groups, all of them radicals. Heck they are also interconnected and at least one group is well known for committing voter fraud.

He is also not only associated with, but has worked with at least 2 unrepentent terrorists.

Burnadean Dorn (sp?) ring any bells, that's Bill Ayers' wife.

Seriously, Senator Obama's connections are extremely scary, and for me a Republican whom can't stand Hillary Clinton to rather have her in the White House is saying quite a bit.
Well, I'd like to see any president try to take a shovel to our privileges as Americans. They often don't get anywhere near as much done as they would have hoped, regardless of affiliation.

Now, like Obama, I find McCain to be a respectable man. I may not agree with most of what he has to say, but I think he, like Obama, are patriots on different parts of the patriot grid.

I'm not going to say that an unpatriotic person wants to run for President of the United States. I think you need to be patriotic to this country in order to do so, but many people have different ideas on how this country can be better or worse, thus we have the elections.

Some think the country is nearly perfect the way it is. There you have the "conservatives". Then you have those that see a brighter and brighter future, the "leftists". Both want the best for the country, but they are two fundamentally different views of "change".

There you have Obama and McCain. Now, as individuals, I find them to be respectable, patriotic men. However, their affiliations have something to be questioned as anyone would and should.

Sure, Obama knows a former terrorist. A radical. And I agree that the affiliation is something to be questioned.

McCain has the Keating Five Scandal on his hands, as well as Sarah Palin.

Keating bombed some stuff in his own view of how to make America better. He screwed up a lot, but seems to have calmed down in the last 30 years. Age tends to do that to someone. Not saying he's a great guy, as I have not met him, but more pointing out what I know about him. His actions and the deaths caused by them are hard to excuse.

Then you have Sarah Palin, a woman I have problems with. She would be the main reason I can't vote for McCain even if he is a pretty good guy. She seem to have been a promotional choice to pull in voters, and that is a questionable move. I have a few problems with her stances and actions, like charging women for rape kits, her desire to take a number of endangered animals off the list, her seemingly complete uninterested with alternate fuel sources (some speculate its because she has strong ties to the oil groups in Aslaska) and other such things as well as he disturbing lack of experience. Now, she could turn out to be far more experienced than we believe, I'm not going to deny that.

But, I am disturbed by anyone that calls the person they are running against a terrorist and riles up a crowd of supporters to the point they are yelling obscenities and crying out things like "kill obama" "terrorist" "deport him". I am just as disturbed, if not more, with than as I am with Obama's relationship with a former large scale bomber extremist. Wishing harm upon the other candidate is sickening and degrading to this country. Mud racking is to be expected... but come on. This is getting out of hand on both sides.

Not a fan of radicals on either side of the board, and both have affiliated themselves with both. Although, on the other hand, it could be said that doing thus is really the only way to pull in multiple voting groups.

Or, as some call it, selling out to your party. Which I believe both have. Hell, is it possible for most candidates to not sell out to some degree?

No, I don't think either will destroy our rights. Obama isn't Hitler, and I don't exactly understand why you fear he is going to bring about the end of days for America. Personally, I find that to be an extreme stance on things from one side of the board looking upon another, as they are just as afraid of you as you are of them.

But, gotta have the extremes. Without them, there is nowhere for the people in the middle to look towards. Not people on the ropes, but rather people like me that would rather look through both sides and decide from there.

Obama wont take your rights, don't worry. I'm not worried that Palin or McCain will take away mine, as I look more towards things like voters, the constitution and so on to make those choices.

Remember, they can only do as much as we allow them. They take away our rights and turn our country into Russia, you are to blame my friend. I am to blame. That guy over there is to blame.

The thing about Nazi Germany was, a charismatic leader convinced the people to give their rights up. Ripping rights away from people is a difficult task, but convincing the people to give them up has been done many a time before.

Trust me, when this country is willing to let someone take an axe to their rights... the people will be there to put the pieces into the wood chipper. Until then, I believe we'll hold as strong as we always have.

And this is like pretty much every other election, make no mistake. The people on both sides accuse the other of scandle and fraud. The people on both sides fear the other side, and fear for their rights. When they get into office, one side hope he will do well while the other pray that America wont become Russia or something.

We've been through 43 presidents and we're still America, and in nearly ever election paranoia from both sides was rampant.

And, if you fear any of them, than this country already is in major trouble. People and not supposed to be afraid of their government. The government is supposed to be afraid of its people. When you fear them, they've won regardless of who makes it into office.

And that is all for now.

Rogue Nine
10-11-2008, 10:37 PM
This is far worse than a typical election, to give you a little straight talk this election could determine whether we get to keep our rights. Obama is tied to some pretty scary people and groups, all of them radicals. Heck they are also interconnected and at least one group is well known for committing voter fraud.
And now McCain is tied to someone who abused her power as executive of a state. Hmmm...

He is also not only associated with, but has worked with at least 2 unrepentent terrorists.

Burnadean Dorn (sp?) ring any bells, that's Bill Ayers' wife.
What did he work with them on? A plan on how to bomb government buildings? A class on how to screw over America?

Seriously, Senator Obama's connections are extremely scary, and for me a Republican whom can't stand Hillary Clinton to rather have her in the White House is saying quite a bit.
John McCain said that people 'do not have to fear Obama as President of the United States' because he is a 'decent man'. If he's so tied to a terrorist and fraudulent organizations, then why isn't John McCain himself afraid of Obama winning the Presidency?

GarfieldJL
10-11-2008, 10:44 PM
And now McCain is tied to someone who abused her power as executive of a state. Hmmm...

We're going from a report whom the head of the investigation is a member of the Obama campaign, and a bunch of people that have a grudge against her, this report arguably could be overturned because the people on it had an ax to grind.


What did he work with them on? A plan on how to bomb government buildings? A class on how to screw over America?

Trying to radicalize Chicago's youth for starters, funnelling money to ACORN, etc.


John McCain said that people 'do not have to fear Obama as President of the United States' because he is a 'decent man'. If he's so tied to a terrorist and fraudulent organizations, then why isn't John McCain himself afraid of Obama winning the Presidency?

Who said he isn't, John McCain though promised to be respectful, and he's keeping to his word even though Obama isn't and he needs to get tougher. And if John McCain were in front of me right now I'd tell it to his face that every American should be afraid, I've done my own research. And thus far my research tilts toward the accusations concerning Obama being accurate.

Rogue Nine
10-11-2008, 10:57 PM
We're going from a report whom the head of the investigation is a member of the Obama campaign, and a bunch of people that have a grudge against her, this report arguably could be overturned because the people on it had an ax to grind.
Please show me where Sen. French is a member of the Obama campaign. Thanks.

Trying to radicalize Chicago's youth for starters, funnelling money to ACORN, etc.
Sources, please.

Who said he isn't, John McCain though promised to be respectful, and he's keeping to his word even though Obama isn't and he needs to get tougher. And if John McCain were in front of me right now I'd tell it to his face that every American should be afraid, I've done my own research. And thus far my research tilts toward the accusations concerning Obama being accurate.
Funny how McCain goes from attacking Obama's character to 'being respectful'. Why the 180-degree turn?

GarfieldJL
10-11-2008, 11:12 PM
http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/09/09/troopergate-meet-the-investigators/

From an Obama Campaign Headquarters no less.

Funny how McCain goes from attacking Obama's character to 'being respectful'. Why the 180-degree turn?
He's trying to be respectful, that doesn't mean Governor Palin and some members of his campaign don't have other ideas. And personally I agree with Palin, because the associations are scary.

Rogue Nine
10-11-2008, 11:19 PM
http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/09/09/troopergate-meet-the-investigators/

From an Obama Campaign Headquarters no less.
Thanks for the link. Please provide sources for your other assertion about ACORN and the radicalization of Chicagoan youth.

He's trying to be respectful, that doesn't mean Governor Palin and some members of his campaign don't have other ideas.
It's pretty bad strategy to be respectful and preach respect about your opponent and have your running mate take stabs at his character with wild accusations. Why aren't McCain and Palin on the same page here? Or are you saying they shouldn't be on the same page?

Achilles
10-12-2008, 12:01 AM
Or even if it wasn't, he made it appear to be and I'm sure that's hard enough.It isn't a question of whether it was easy or difficult (I know it was difficult). The question is the sincerity of it.

Oh, come on. Expecting the candidates to always say something positive about the other isn't going to happen and is entirely unrealistic. Since you choose the tone: Sorry about that--I shouldn't have done that especially given the general rancor in the forum. I edited it accordingly. --Jae
Oh, come on, Jae. Big difference between volunteering somethign nice about your opponent (i.e. when Obama thanks McCain for his services and acknowledges him as a hero) and accusing them of being in league with terrorists. Care to try again?

Obama's said his share of negative things, too--all the candidates do it because it's proven effective with voters. Please provide one example of where Obama has attacked McCain's character, patriotism, devotion to country...heck, provide just one example of where Obama has "attacked" McCain on anything that wasn't a campaign issue. Please try again.

How McCain said what he said when defending Obama, along with the words he used and his body language indicate to me that he was sincere. You can argue that McCain was just acting, but I think that's ascribing negative motives where there are none.As always, you are welcome to your opinion. In the mean time I will remain incredibly skeptical of the sudden sea change that I am supposed to believe has absolutely nothing to do with polling numbers, etc.

I dunno, after seeing him practically snatch that mic out of that crazed woman's hands I'd say he had a moment of sincerity and we got to see a bit of the real McCain.Did you watch any footage of his rallies this week? He said nothing when people yelled "terrorist" or "kill him!" during the rallies. He spent millions of dollars running negative ads. I'm not buying that this incarnation is "the real John McCain".

Just so we're clear, I'm not claiming that I have the ability to read minds, however I have watched several weeks of John McCain acting like a complete ***hole and I'm not willing to believe that what I was not his true colors just because he changed his tone for one rally. Especially since the change in tone could easily be explained by something much more mundane such as bad internal polling numbers or a stern talking to from the Secret Service (re: threats against Obama at rallies).

EDIT: Here's a link to an interview with the woman that called Obama an "Arab (terrorist?)" at the McCain rally yesterday. The audio is iffy due to the background music, etc, however there is a transcript of the conversation on the page. Here's part of it:
Aigner: So even though Senator McCain told you that he didn’t feel that was true and you ought to be more respectful, you still fear that?

Quinnell I still do. Yeah. I’m not alone. I go to Burnsville, the main Republican headquarters and I do a lot of work over there. A lot of sending out mail and talking to people. And all the people agree with what I’m saying to you about Obama.

Aigner :Then do you feel there are a lot of volunteers for McCain who feel that way?

Quinnell Yes. A lot of them. In fact I got a letter from another woman that goes over there to Burnsville and she sent me more things about Obama.

Aigner:What was on the letter?

Quinnell Oh all kinds of bad things about him and how, I mean I have to tell you to call me. It’s all bad.

Reporter: Are a lot of people getting this letter and are a lot of people believeing it and is that turning a lot of votes or support for McCain?

Quinnell Yeah I sent out 400 letters. I went to Kinkos and I got them all printed out. And I sent about 400 letters. I went in the telephone book and sent them out to people. So they can decide if they would want Obama.
So my earlier question was whether or not McCain's supporters would stop repeating the rhetoric once McCain stopped spewing it. If this is any indication, the answer would seem to be "no".

Jae Onasi
10-12-2008, 03:48 PM
In the mean time I will remain incredibly skeptical of the sudden sea change that I am supposed to believe has absolutely nothing to do with polling numbers, etc.
I'm very saddened that you've chosen to believe the worst about someone. :(

Yar-El
10-12-2008, 04:11 PM
Achilles, I get you now. Lets put this on the table, and see where it goes from here. Your upset about a McCain supporter calling Obama an "Arab (terrorist?)" Hmm... Lets get this straight. You are upset that a McCain supporter called Obama an Arab...

How about Obama's supporter that said, "God Damn America!" Do you remember him?

Jeremiah Wright - God Damn America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH5ixmT83JE&feature=related)

McCain quickly corrected the lady, but Obama didn't do anything until people got upset. I think it was a week later.

Where is your frustration now? You should be more upset with Obama's supporters. Why? They are verbally attacking your country, and they are tarnishing what the United States stands for.

Inyri
10-12-2008, 04:16 PM
Those two things are not equivalent.

Yar-El
10-12-2008, 04:31 PM
Those two things are not equivalent. You are correct. One attacks the character of a man, and the other one attacks the character of the United States.

One is a man.
One is a country where thousands have died to protect.

One is a man.
One is a country where people live and fight for my and your freedoms.

One is a man.
One is a country that fights as one.

One is a man.
One is a collection of individuals who stand together.

One is a man.
One is a collection of individuals whose history is diverse, pure, and sovern.

One is a man.
One is the country in which some people here call home.

Obama is not a terrorist, but he is a man who keeps bad bed fellows. We are defined by those of whom we suround ourselves with. Character, integrity, and honor is everyhing to the army, navy, air force, marines, and their fellow Americans.

Achilles
10-12-2008, 04:31 PM
I'm very saddened that you've chosen to believe the worst about someone. :(I haven't fabricated the tone of McCain's campaign, Jae. He's been 100% hypocritical about running a "respectful campaign" and you expect me to forget everything he's said and assume the best about him because of one...single...rally. Help me understand how this makes sense.

P.S. Please don't think that I didn't notice that you chose to post a condescending message rather than address the points that I raised. Perhaps it would behoove you to review Rogue Nine's post about the forum rules.

Samuel Dravis
10-12-2008, 05:31 PM
I take it you've never actually watched the full length Wright videos, Yar-El. The one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf3SNOmvxi0) where he supposedly says that "America deserved 9-11" actually only points out that, America having killed a lot of people and abused many others during the course of our history, we shouldn't be surprised that at least some of those people we (accidentally, of course) don't kill are going to be angry with us.

The one you linked to is similarly misconstrued. The full video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lw&feature=related) provides the context for his statements, and qualifiers for "God damn America" which are before and after the clip you posted. Wright lists quite a few things that America has done wrong and then he asks (I paraphrase), "and are we [those people who have been wronged] expected by the government to say God bless America [after all of that has been done to us]? No! [we'd say] 'God damn America!'"

After that, he specifically qualifies his statement by saying (I quote): "God damn America, it's in the Bible, for killing innocent people! God damn America for treating her citizens as less than human! God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and she is supreme."

Is there a specific idea here that you disagree with?

Achilles
10-12-2008, 05:58 PM
I just read this somewhere else and am a little disappointed in myself for not catching it earlier.

Here is part of the exchange between Senator McCain and Mrs. Quinnell:
Quinnell: Obama is an Arab.
McCain: No, he's a decent family man.

Stop for a second and let that sink in. Read it again if you need to.

Okay, now ask yourself, what is McCain saying about Arabs by making this statement? Granted, he was responding in real-time and didn't have much time to think about what he was going to say before he said it, however it will be interesting to see if he retracts his statement before he faces yet another stink.

Yar-El
10-12-2008, 06:27 PM
I take it you've never actually watched the full length Wright videos, Yar-El. The one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf3SNOmvxi0) where he supposedly says that "America deserved 9-11" actually only points out that, America having killed a lot of people and abused many others during the course of our history, we shouldn't be surprised that at least some of those people we (accidentally, of course) don't kill are going to be angry with us.

The one you linked to is similarly misconstrued. The full video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lw&feature=related) provides the context for his statements, and qualifiers for "God damn America" which are before and after the clip you posted. Wright lists quite a few things that America has done wrong and then he asks (I paraphrase), "and are we [those people who have been wronged] expected by the government to say God bless America [after all of that has been done to us]? No! [we'd say] 'God damn America!'"

After that, he specifically qualifies his statement by saying (I quote): "God damn America, it's in the Bible, for killing innocent people! God damn America for treating her citizens as less than human! God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and she is supreme."

Is there a specific idea here that you disagree with? I just didn't have the full video. It still comes off as being unpatriotic and radical.

I'm not going to deny that our military has hit civilians during war. That is the cruel nature of being in war. Serious mistakes are made. Rev. Wright was talking to people during a religious service, and he smeared the truth of some of our history. He also blamed the US for the AIDS infection in Africa.

Where I wanted this to go is - you can't blame McCain for a voter's words unless you complain about Obama and his friends and alies. I don't hold McCain responsible for his voter's beliefs. Why? She is not giving him money, but she is giving him her vote. Obama's friends and religious affiliates are giving him votes and money. Not to mention that Obama continued to support them until the public started to backlash. McCain on the other hand quickly dealt with the problem. Obama waited.

KinchyB
10-12-2008, 06:39 PM
McCain on the other hand quickly dealt with the problem. Obama waited.

Hope you're not referring to the "Arab" comment here as McCain didn't actually quickly deal with this issue as this wasn't the first issue. McCain had been getting flack from several Media outlets, Obama (i blieve but can't rememember officially if he also addressed the issue), and even Biden made comments about the rallies McCain and Palin had been holding where people were loudly smearing and threatening Obama (The FBI is currently investigating one of the threats). Only after he was called out did he actually take any action and that is hardly quickly.

Achilles
10-12-2008, 06:57 PM
^^^^
Not to mention that this particular issue was one that his campaign was complicit in, if not directly responsible for creating.

Obama denounced Wright after Wright went on television and made blatantly racist comments. It had absolutely nothing to do with the sermons (which SD points out, have largely been taken out of context).

Jae Onasi
10-12-2008, 08:01 PM
I haven't fabricated the tone of McCain's campaign, Jae. He's been 100% hypocritical about running a "respectful campaign" and you expect me to forget everything he's said and assume the best about him because of one...single...rally. Help me understand how this makes sense.
I don't expect you to assume the best of him in general. I was just talking about assuming the worst in that action.

I edited my previous post, btw, because the tone was too harsh.

P.S. Please don't think that I didn't notice that you chose to post a condescending message rather than address the points that I raised. Perhaps it would behoove you to review Rogue Nine's post about the forum rules.
It was not meant to be condescending in the least. I was distressed by the comment.

As for the negativism--Plouffe's emails that I get from the Obama campaign do the job for Obama. His campaign has become nothing but a series of smears, lies, and cynical attempts to distract from the issues that matter to the American people
Some of the ads cynical? Definitely. Overstatements? Yes. All smears, lies, and cynical attempts to distract from the issues? No. I understand Plouffe's enthusiasm, but I wish he'd also tone it down a bit.
I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans - I just think he doesn't know".
Does that sound positive to you? It doesn't to me, but I understand why Obama said it.
Obama's campaign is being disingenuous on McCain's stance on stem cell research--I've heard radio ads in WI saying "McCain has opposed all funding for stem cell research", which is patently wrong. He's opposed embryonic stem cell research but not adult stem cell research.

And for the record, I despise the tone McCain's campaign has taken on Obama, and apparently McCain is pulling back from the vitriol if I've heard correctly today. I think it was completely the wrong way for McCain's campaign to go, and a lot of Americans agree, if the increase in poll numbers for Obama are any indication.

Samuel Dravis
10-12-2008, 08:16 PM
I just didn't have the full video. It still comes off as being unpatriotic and radical.Well, that depends on what you mean by patriotic I suppose. Personally I would expect a patriot to be critical of flaws in his country's policy - particularly moral flaws. If it is radical to say the kinds of things he did, then any patriot must necessarily be a radical. In that case, I don't think that saying he is radical is in any way a negative. I think that Wright, while he is quite theatrical in making his points, isn't someone that wishes any evil on America.

I'm not going to deny that our military has hit civilians during war. That is the cruel nature of being in war. Serious mistakes are made. Rev. Wright was talking to people during a religious service, and he smeared the truth of some of our history. He also blamed the US for the AIDS infection in Africa.Just as long as we can agree that he wasn't saying America is inherently evil or deserves to go to hell. Whether or not he was inaccurate (I don't know if he was) on a particular fact out of a long list doesn't change that.

Not sure why it is wrong for a pastor to talk about morality during a service. Your mileage may vary, but in general that seems to me to be one of the main reasons to give a sermon.

Where I wanted this to go is - you can't blame McCain for a voter's words unless you complain about Obama and his friends and alies. I don't hold McCain responsible for his voter's beliefs. Why? She is not giving him money, but she is giving him her vote. Obama's friends and religious affiliates are giving him votes and money. Not to mention that Obama continued to support them until the public started to backlash. McCain on the other hand quickly dealt with the problem. Obama waited.I agree that it is disingenuous to blame a candidate for someone else's words. Since Achilles and Kinchy have already replied I'll leave the rest of this alone.

Yar-El
10-12-2008, 08:40 PM
Well, that depends on what you mean by patriotic I suppose. Personally I would expect a patriot to be critical of flaws in his country's policy - particularly moral flaws. If it is radical to say the kinds of things he did, then any patriot must necessarily be a radical. In that case, I don't think that saying he is radical is in any way a negative. I think that Wright, while he is quite theatrical in making his points, isn't someone that wishes any evil on America. I can't disagree with you on that. I believe it is every patriot's duty to tell the government when they are wrong, but I don't believe we have to go into extremes. There are somethings in this country where I would promote a Revolution, but it would have to be carried out in a moral and patriotic way. By law for law.

Just as long as we can agree that he wasn't saying America is inherently evil or deserves to go to hell. Whether or not he was inaccurate (I don't know if he was) on a particular fact out of a long list doesn't change that. Wright was promoting his anger, but we also have to remember he has done this on more than one occassion. His message comes of as, "I hate America!" than "I hate what America does!".

Achilles
10-12-2008, 09:02 PM
I don't expect you to assume the best of him in general. I was just talking about assuming the worst in that action. I've explained in multiple posts why his actions have given me no reason to see this any other way. I've invited you to explain why I should not. Thus far you've exercised your right to refuse my invitation.

I repeat: if the man runs an intentionally negative campaign for weeks and months, why should I assume that his intentions are pure when this changes for the length of one rally?

It was not meant to be condescending in the least. I was distressed by the comment.:lol: okay.

As for the negativism--Plouffe's emails that I get from the Obama campaign do the job for Obama.
<snip>
Some of the ads cynical? Definitely. Overstatements? Yes. Again, you're welcome to your opinion. As someone that devotes time to watching the ads of both campaigns, I guess I'm struggling to see the discrepancy.

All smears, lies, and cynical attempts to distract from the issues? No. I understand Plouffe's enthusiasm, but I wish he'd also tone it down a bit.Because it's not true or...?

Would it change your mind to know that rather than this being a case of Ploffe taking liberties (as you seem to assume here), that this is the finding of an independent campaign analysis group (I'll PM you the source upon request. The hosting discussion forum in question has non-Kavar's friendly language)?

Does that sound positive to you? It doesn't to me, but I understand why Obama said it.Well that's a matter of opinion. Obama made clear in DNC speech that he wasn't going to insult McCain by assuming that he didn't care. I think it's one thing to assume that someone is uncaring or stupid and another to assume that they aren't aware.

But perhaps you'd prefer that Obama not take McCain to task on the issues. In which case, I'd have to drudge up a previous thread where you wished that his campaign would do it more (putting his campaign in "serious risk" if I remember your words correctly).

Obama's campaign is being disingenuous on McCain's stance on stem cell research--I've heard radio ads in WI saying "McCain has opposed all funding for stem cell research", which is patently wrong. He's opposed embryonic stem cell research but not adult stem cell research. We can certainly have that discussion, however I asked for an example of Obama attacking McCain's character (as McCain has done Obama) and this isn't one of those. If you have one, I look forward to seeing it.

Since I don't have access to radio ads in WI, I'll have to take you at your word that the commercial says what you say it does.

And for the record, I despise the tone McCain's campaign has taken on Obama, and apparently McCain is pulling back from the vitriol if I've heard correctly today. I think it was completely the wrong way for McCain's campaign to go, and a lot of Americans agree, if the increase in poll numbers for Obama are any indication.You despise it, you're just not willing to hold him accountable for it?

Jae Onasi
10-13-2008, 12:19 AM
I've invited you to explain why I should not. Thus far you've exercised your right to refuse my invitation.I explained before: Tone of voice, body language, words he said. For that episode with the woman who said Obama was an Arab, I don't think he was putting on an act for the reasons I just restated. Please don't tell me I haven't replied when I have.

Regarding the WI stem cell ad:
Article with text of ad (http://blogs.jsonline.com/allpoliticswatch/archive/2008/09/24/obama-stem-cell-ad-draws-sharp-criticism.aspx)

Republican presidential candidate John McCain was the first to bring the topic up, airing a radio ad in Wisconsin and elsewhere that extolled his support for stem cell research, noting it carries the prospect to "unlock the mystery of cancer, diabetes, heart disease. Stem cell research to help free families from the fear and devastation of illness."

Democrat Barack Obama has responded with his own radio ad, airing here and elsewhere in which the campaign claims: "John McCain has stood in the way ... he's opposed stem cell research. Picked a running mate who's against it. And he's running on a platform even more extreme than George Bush's on this vital research."
(The Obama ad features Jody Montgomery, a Verona resident, talking about her daughter Maddy, who has juvenile diabetes and has to have her blood-sugar levels checked six times a day. Montgomery appeared in a Doyle TV ad in 2006, as well as with Doyle at other events).
I have to wonder why this mother has to check her daughter's blood sugar 6 times a day, when the standard is 2 to 4 times. The only time I've seen glucose tested that often is in ICUs, but there may be some very unusual mitigating factor in that situation. McCain voted to lift the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research last year (Bush vetoed it). Obama's campaign did not apologize for the distortion, but instead said this:
"It's clear that John McCain has given in to the extremist wing of his party and given up any credibility he had on this issue when he adopted a party platform that calls for banning all embryonic stem cell research and asked his running mate, who is definitely opposed to embryonic stem cell research, to lead his administration's efforts in finding cures for debilitating diseases."
I don't think that's right any more than what McCain's doing, although McCain's certainly wallowing in the mud compared to Obama's dirty fingers.
BTW--the Journal-Sentinel tends to run on the liberal side in accordance with Milwaukee being a quite Democratic city.

You despise it, you're just not willing to hold him accountable for it?I plan on holding him accountable in the best way I know how--voting for Obama in November.

Edit: If you wouldn't mind PMing me the link, I would be grateful because I would like to see it. Thanks.

Achilles
10-13-2008, 12:58 AM
I explained before: Tone of voice, body language, words he said. For that episode with the woman who said Obama was an Arab, I don't think he was putting on an act for the reasons I just restated. Please don't tell me I haven't replied when I have.First, you're not answering the question. Why should I take the words that McCain spoke one time over the actions that he's repeatedly made (that's the question)? Second, his "sincerity" is based on your subjective opinion and nothing more (others, including myself, think he looks like someone who is being forced to say something he'd rather not as evidence by lack of eye contact, looking down, etc (http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies_eyes.php)).

Regarding the WI stem cell ad:
Article with text of ad (http://blogs.jsonline.com/allpoliticswatch/archive/2008/09/24/obama-stem-cell-ad-draws-sharp-criticism.aspx)

I have to wonder why this mother has to check her daughter's blood sugar 6 times a day, when the standard is 2 to 4 times. The only time I've seen glucose tested that often is in ICUs, but there may be some very unusual mitigating factor in that situation. McCain voted to lift the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research last year (Bush vetoed it). Obama's campaign did not apologize for the distortion, but instead said this:

I don't think that's right any more than what McCain's doing. Thank you for the link and the commentary. I am still awaiting the single example of where Obama has gone after or "attacked" McCain on anything other than a campaign issue. Since this is the third time I've tried to direct this point back to your original statement, I am going to proceed as though you are either unwilling or unable to furnish such an example.

BTW--the Journal-Sentinel tends to run on the liberal side in accordance with Milwaukee being a quite Democratic city. Ok, thanks.

I plan on holding him accountable in the best way I know how--voting for Obama in November.Ok, well if you don't intend to do so here, that's fine, but I'm still confused as to why you want to harass those that are choosing to speak out before November 4th. Especially since you've stated that you agree he's been out of line.

Edit: If you wouldn't mind PMing me the link, I would be grateful because I would like to see it. Thanks. Sent :)

Achilles
10-13-2008, 04:49 PM
McFrankenstein's Monster (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/Republican_activists_offmessage_at_McCain_rallies_ cont.html?showall)

Of course, the premise of my earlier question required that his supporters would stop the silliness if McCain himself (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/236616.php) stopped first.

Yar-El
10-13-2008, 06:40 PM
Thank you for the link and the commentary. I am still awaiting the single example of where Obama has gone after or "attacked" McCain on anything other than a campaign issue. Since this is the third time I've tried to direct this point back to your original statement, I am going to proceed as though you are either unwilling or unable to furnish such an example.

Biden Calls Obama Attack Ad “Terrible” (http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/22/biden-calls-obama-attack-ad-terrible/)

Obama Slams McCain's Age (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/09/obama-slams-mcc.html)

Obama ad mocks McCain POW injuries (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwgen2ei0rw&feature=related)

The Delaware Senator took issue with an attack ad from his own side in an interview with CBS, telling Katie Couric that the Obama hit on McCain’s ignorance of computers and technology was “terrible.” The ad paints McCain as out of touch — and all but calls him ancient — but doesn’t mention that the Arizona Senator’s war injuries actually prevent him from using computers for an extended period. An argument could be made that Obama attacked a partially handicaped war veteran. Wait, he did! :disaprove

Inyri
10-13-2008, 06:52 PM
Biden Calls Obama Attack Ad “Terrible” (http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/22/biden-calls-obama-attack-ad-terrible/)From your own cited article: "But Biden said he didn’t think there was anything intentionally personal in the ad."

Also: "But as the moment went viral, hitting the internet traffic engine the Drudge Report, Biden revised and extended his remarks in a statement — saying he hadn’t even seen it when he condemned it."

Astor
10-13-2008, 06:55 PM
Also, if i've seen the right ad, the only thing related to Obama is a soundbite at the end, right?

So it's hardly conclusive evidence that Obama is personally attacking him - tacking a soundbite onto the end of an ad doesn't prove anything. But then again, I may have seen the wrong ad.

Inyri
10-13-2008, 07:00 PM
Honestly I don't see how McCain's tech unsavvyness being labeled as 'out of touch with the American people' is an attack on his POW injuries or a personal attack. His POW injuries supposedly keep him from using a computer for an extended period of time, not at all, and they certainly don't restrict him from sending e-mail.

Technology is a big part of who we are a nation. Someone who doesn't feel the need to understand that technology probably is out of touch.

Achilles
10-13-2008, 07:03 PM
YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5fdzji2C54)

This just keeps getting sillier and sillier. We now have pastors at McCain rallies now asking for god to intervene because of all the hindus, buddhists, and muslims that are praying for an Obama victory.

McCain had a chance to show the world that his intervention last week wasn't a one-time political stunt. Consider it squandered.

GarfieldJL
10-13-2008, 07:18 PM
Well, that depends on what you mean by patriotic I suppose. Personally I would expect a patriot to be critical of flaws in his country's policy - particularly moral flaws. If it is radical to say the kinds of things he did, then any patriot must necessarily be a radical. In that case, I don't think that saying he is radical is in any way a negative. I think that Wright, while he is quite theatrical in making his points, isn't someone that wishes any evil on America.


While a patriot can and should make known when they disagree with their country's government, they shouldn't be preaching hate like Rev. Wright. Have you heard some of Wright's accusations, some of them are just off the wall. And this is a man Obama had for a Pastor and spiritual mentor for 20 years.


Just as long as we can agree that he wasn't saying America is inherently evil or deserves to go to hell. Whether or not he was inaccurate (I don't know if he was) on a particular fact out of a long list doesn't change that.


But Obama's pastor did say America is inherently evil though, Rev. Wright is a racist. Plain and simple, and if this had been McCain's pastor the media wouldn't just be calling for him to drop out of the race, they'd be calling for him to resign from office.


Not sure why it is wrong for a pastor to talk about morality during a service. Your mileage may vary, but in general that seems to me to be one of the main reasons to give a sermon.


I don't mind morals, I do mind when someone preaches hate. I do mind when someone exposes his children to such hate. I do mind when someone lies to my face expecting me to be too dumb and lazy to do my own research.


I agree that it is disingenuous to blame a candidate for someone else's words. Since Achilles and Kinchy have already replied I'll leave the rest of this alone.

Ordinarily you'd be right, but there are exceptions. Rev. Wright was his pastor for 20 years, and Obama himself said the man was his spiritual mentor until this stuff came out and he tried to backpedal and lie about that fact. Senator Obama exposed his children to this lunatic's rants, and he continued to do so.

In a situation like this, the fact you have a pastor that spews hate and he attended that church for 20 years, brings up four possibilities in my mind.

That he was always asleep when Rev. Wright said those things.
That he was a member of that church only because it was politically expedient. -- showing he cares more about his political career than doing the right thing.
He didn't have the judgement to know that he should leave the church until the situation blew up in his face.
He honestly believes as Rev. Wright does.


I honestly believe it is the fourth possibility, the only other likely scenario is option two.

KinchyB
10-13-2008, 07:43 PM
While a patriot can and should make known when they disagree with their country's government, they shouldn't be preaching hate like Rev. Wright. Have you heard some of Wright's accusations, some of them are just off the wall. And this is a man Obama had for a Pastor and spiritual mentor for 20 years.

Looks like 2 here...Non Sequitor...Irrelevant Conclusion

But Obama's pastor did say America is inherently evil though, Rev. Wright is a racist. Plain and simple, and if this had been McCain's pastor the media wouldn't just be calling for him to drop out of the race, they'd be calling for him to resign from office.

Again...Non Sequitor

I don't mind morals, I do mind when someone preaches hate. I do mind when someone exposes his children to such hate. I do mind when someone lies to my face expecting me to be too dumb and lazy to do my own research.

Proof is in the pudding...listing specific examples with this really helps prove a point.

Ordinarily you'd be right, but there are exceptions. Rev. Wright was his pastor for 20 years, and Obama himself said the man was his spiritual mentor until this stuff came out and he tried to backpedal and lie about that fact. Senator Obama exposed his children to this lunatic's rants, and he continued to do so.

Good point... mind sharing where you have read all of Rev. Wright’s sermons? Bet they are an interesting read. Hope they are organized by date given... (This is a rhetorical question)

In a situation like this, the fact you have a pastor that spews hate and he attended that church for 20 years, brings up four possibilities in my mind.

That he was always asleep when Rev. Wright said those things.
That he was a member of that church only because it was politically expedient. -- showing he cares more about his political career than doing the right thing.
He didn't have the judgement to know that he should leave the church until the situation blew up in his face.
He honestly believes as Rev. Wright does.


I honestly believe it is the fourth possibility, the only other likely scenario is option two.

Wow, your lack of any positive examples that could also have happened really does show your bias in this case. Even fox news throws out some positive comments to hold their pseudo-credibility every now and again. :xp:

GarfieldJL
10-13-2008, 07:52 PM
Proof is in the pudding...listing specific examples with this really helps prove a point.


"US KKK of A" is one of them I believe.

Another one had to do with the US supposedly inventing the AIDs virus to kill black people.


Wow, your lack of any positive examples that could also have happened really does show your bias in this case. Even fox news throws out some positive comments to hold their pseudo-credibility every now and again. :xp:

Oh you mean like:
"G** D*** America!" - Rev Wright

And I don't see you coming up with any explanation of why he attended that church for 20 years.

Inyri
10-13-2008, 07:56 PM
Go to church some day and you'll notice that it involves more than a pastor and a sermon. I'm not going to explain why Obama went to a certain church for 20 years because it would be speculation. Why don't you go ask him instead of dishing out conjectural smears?

GarfieldJL
10-13-2008, 08:00 PM
Go to church some day and you'll notice that it involves more than a pastor and a sermon. I'm not going to explain why Obama went to a certain church for 20 years because it would be speculation. Why don't you go ask him instead of dishing out conjectural smears?

I've been a church that started spewing intolerance and my family and myself left that church immediately.

Yar-El
10-13-2008, 08:27 PM
Rev. Wright doesn't have any hate in him?
Reverend Jeremiah Wright Blames the U.S. for 9/11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9HUdF9OZa8&feature=related)

Rev. Wright believes white Americans are the US of KKKA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M-kD0QdRJk)

Obama: NEW Rev. Wright Anti-Jew, Anti-Italian, Anti-Israel - Pro Hamas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY1hytzjfAA)

Wright is a man who Obama supported for 20 years. Obama and his wife were married by him, and his children were baptised by him. Obama also donated $20,000 to help Wright.

ACORN Fraud & Obama Ties (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM708EjH0bs)

Jae Onasi
10-14-2008, 11:02 AM
First, you're not answering the question. Why should I take the words that McCain spoke one time over the actions that he's repeatedly made (that's the question)? Second, his "sincerity" is based on your subjective opinion and nothing more (others, including myself, think he looks like someone who is being forced to say something he'd rather not as evidence by lack of eye contact, looking down, etc (http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies_eyes.php)).If you're talking about the entire Waukesha town hall, I would agree that the sudden change in tone is completely politically motivated. The only thing I spoke about was the one episode with the lady. You don't have to believe it at all if you don't want--you've clearly made up your mind anyway.

I think his immediate breaking eye contact with her was to cut her off right then and refuse even to acknowledge her further. It also looked to me that the reason he was looking down for that moment was to see where he was stepping--not an unusual thing since many of my 70+ year old patients do it quite frequently so they don't trip. I have to look down when I'm walking on a stage to make sure I don't trip over wires, and I'm only permanently 29. I'm not 100% sure if that's what it is, anymore than you're 100% that his action with this older lady was complete fabrication.

May I ask why you are linking this website for eye movements, especially one that has on its home page "What does "Blifaloo" mean? Blifaloo is what you say when you are too drunk/tired/lazy/dumb to say or type buatiful beautful beautiful" to explain why it's named "Blifaloo"? It's really hard to take a site like that seriously. There are plenty of scholarly articles with discussion of eye movements and body language that would work better, I think.


Thank you for the link and the commentary. I am still awaiting the single example of where Obama has gone after or "attacked" McCain on anything other than a campaign issue. Since this is the third time I've tried to direct this point back to your original statement, I am going to proceed as though you are either unwilling or unable to furnish such an example.OK, you ask for a source, and then you stack the deck to make it impossible to prove that it's not campaign related--everything is campaign-related right now. I'm not going to be able to find anything under that set of impossible conditions.

Also, are you saying it's OK to say blatant lies just because it's campaign related? I will say that both parties are guilty of it, McCain's campaign taking far more of that share.


Ok, well if you don't intend to do so here, that's fine, but I'm still confused as to why you want to harass those that are choosing to speak out before November 4th. Especially since you've stated that you agree he's been out of line.If you think I have somehow harassed you, please report it for the staff to evaluate. If you're talking about the edit in your post and you didn't see it, I edited in an apology.

McCain has done more than enough stuff to nail him to the wall for, and we could bring up a ton of obvious things to talk about. However, I'm not interested in making an unfair accusation on this particular issue. It's a small potatoes thing that we may have spent more time on than we should have in retrospect. If you want my opinion on the overall tone of the campaign, when I blogged about the WGN issue I said the Obama campaign made a tactical error, and it has turned out not to be an issue. What McCain did last week with the negative attacks has nearly destroyed his campaign and was a huge strategic blunder that I doubt he can recover from. I can't count him out because I never count out McCain, but I don't think he can overcome the glaring errors he made last week.

Sent :)Thank you. I did appreciate it.

KinchyB
10-14-2008, 02:00 PM
"US KKK of A" is one of them I believe.

Another one had to do with the US supposedly inventing the AIDs virus to kill black people.

Whether you admit it or not 40 years ago "US KKK of A" wasn't exactly missing the mark. If you look at where, how, and what circumstances people grew up in this may make more sense. It's an unfortunate truth about our history that everyone needs to accept. To be honest, until our generation are grandparents this is going to be very prevelent in the older generation.

Regarding that AIDS remark...he could just be off his rocker with this one. Get the whole quote though so it can't be taken out of reference and we'll see about that.

"Oh you mean like:
"G** D*** America!" - Rev Wright.

Taken out of context. Get the whole passage and what he's referring to and we can debate that.

And I don't see you coming up with any explanation of why he attended that church for 20 years.

Honestly, it sounds like as Wright got older he went off the deep end IMO. Let's keep in mind that Wright is a primary reason why Obama is a Christain today, although this doesn't mean that Obama shares the same values as he obviously does not. Also, 20 is a bit much as he didn't join Wrights church until 1992. But the fact remains, he's not there now and he condemned Wright for what he said.

Now, how about you? You mentioned you and your family left a church when you didn't agree with their message (paraphrasing a bit...post #103). Why were you there in the first place? Didn't you know immediately what they would do in the future?

Jae Onasi
10-14-2008, 05:16 PM
Wright's also old enough to remember when the Tuskegee scandal broke, so while I think it's not reasonable to blame one race for inflicting AIDS on another race on purpose, I can see how he got to that conclusion.

Achilles
10-14-2008, 05:25 PM
If you're talking about the entire Waukesha town hall, I would agree that the sudden change in tone is completely politically motivated. As I have been since the beginning of our exchange.

The only thing I spoke about was the one episode with the lady.Which, being part of said townhall, would be applicable to the discussion. Interesting that the sentence above and this one taken together seem to indicate that you're now trying to argue that this one exchange was sincere, while acknowledging that the others were not. So now instead of having everything except one rally as an outlier, you have everything except one exchange. Which would seem to make the "McCain was being sincere" argument even less tenable.

Let's not even bring up that this one statement, even if it did honestly intend to defend Obama, simultaneously managed to insinuate that Arabs are not decent, family oriented people.

You don't have to believe it at all if you don't want--you've clearly made up your mind anyway.To the degree that I "make up my mind" about anything. My position, as always, is based on the available evidence, which is, as always, subject to change.

And for the fourth time, I've invited you to introduce something new. First you introduced a strawman argument as a diversionary tactic ("Not lying about your opponent" = "only saying nice things about them", then arguing the latter isn't realistic). Then you introduced a character attack as a diversionary tactic ("You're just bitter, Achilles, and I think it's very sad"). Now, it seems you're trying accuse me of moving the goal post.

I think his immediate breaking eye contact with her was to cut her off right then and refuse even to acknowledge her further. Indeed that is one possible explanation. Of course, this does have one problem in that the next sentence out of his mouth was, in fact, acknowledging her. That plus the argument that breaking eye contact and looking down when addressing someone is consistent with lying body language.

But, to quote you, "you've clearly made up your mind anyway".

It also looked to me that the reason he was looking down for that moment was to see where he was stepping--not an unusual thing since many of my 70+ year old patients do it quite frequently so they don't trip. I have to look down when I'm walking on a stage to make sure I don't trip over wires, and I'm only permanently 29. I'm not 100% sure if that's what it is, anymore than you're 100% that his action with this older lady was complete fabrication. No, I don't think it was a fabrication. It really happened - I saw it. I simply question the sincerity and the motivation of the sounds that came out of his mouth.

May I ask why you are linking this website for eye movements, especially one that has on its home page "What does "Blifaloo" mean? Blifaloo is what you say when you are too drunk/tired/lazy/dumb to say or type buatiful beautful beautiful" to explain why it's named "Blifaloo"? It's really hard to take a site like that seriously. There are plenty of scholarly articles with discussion of eye movements and body language that would work better, I think. I quite literally selectect the first result that came back for "eye movement lying" (after I checked to make sure that it actually discussed the topic I was referencing). Did you have any commentary on the information provided on the website or did you only want to critique the name in the banner?

Since you mention "scholarly articles", I'm going to assume that you're at least familiar with the research? Does this mean that you are or are not questioning the veracity of the argument? If not (meaning that you are aware of the research and agree that it's legitimate), why the paragraph on the site name (if not to distract)?

OK, you ask for a source, and then you stack the deck to make it impossible to prove that it's not campaign related--everything is campaign-related right now. I'm not going to be able to find anything under that set of impossible conditions. Nope. Please don't move my goal posts.

What I'm asking for has not changed: one example of where Obama has attacked McCain on character (accused him of being a terrorist, accused his wife of working with terrorists, questioned his patriotism, accused him of being a muslim, etc) rather than a campaign issue (energy policy, foreign policy, not understanding the needs of the people).

Remember all this started because you tried to equate Obama's conduct to McCain's. You're free to retract that statement (or provide evidence for it) at any time.

Also, are you saying it's OK to say blatant lies just because it's campaign related? I will say that both parties are guilty of it, McCain's campaign taking far more of that share.Please show me which part of my post lead you to this conclusion?

If you think I have somehow harassed you, please report it for the staff to evaluate. If you're talking about the edit in your post and you didn't see it, I edited in an apology.
Main Entry: ha·rass
Pronunciation: <snip>
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: <snip>
Date: 1617

1 a: exhaust , fatigue b (1): to annoy persistently (2): to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct
2: to worry and impede by repeated raids <harassed the enemy> You're using one definition. I'm using another.

McCain has done more than enough stuff to nail him to the wall for, and we could bring up a ton of obvious things to talk about. However, I'm not interested in making an unfair accusation on this particular issue. Key premise: "unfair"

It's a small potatoes thing that we may have spent more time on than we should have in retrospect. Probably true, but then again, I wasn't the one that decided to defend McCain by equating the two campaigns and then spending several posts over multiple days avoiding providing any evidence for my argument. Such is the way mole hills become mountains in Kavar's Corner.

If you want my opinion on the overall tone of the campaign, when I blogged about the WGN issue I said the Obama campaign made a tactical error, and it has turned out not to be an issue. What McCain did last week with the negative attacks has nearly destroyed his campaign and was a huge strategic blunder that I doubt he can recover from. I can't count him out because I never count out McCain, but I don't think he can overcome the glaring errors he made last week.I think you and I are in complete agreement here. John McCain has made multiple serious blunders and with exactly 3 weeks to go, it's going to be very difficult (if not impossible) for him to dig his way out and make up all the ground he's lost.

Thank you. I did appreciate it.You're quite welcome. Take care.

mimartin
10-14-2008, 05:32 PM
Wright's also old enough to remember when the Tuskegee scandal broke, so while I think it's not reasonable to blame one race for inflicting AIDS on another race on purpose, I can see how he got to that conclusion.Very good point Jae. It does give some perspective into what Reverend Wright may have been thinking when he made a statement that most of us would consider ludicrous. It also shows why someone could give Reverend Wright the benefit of the doubt when setting in his congregation. For those that don't know what Jae is talking about here are some links.

Tuskegee Study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study)

CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm)

Tuskegee University (http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/Story.asp?s=1207598)

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-14-2008, 09:42 PM
Very good point Jae. It does give some perspective into what Reverend Wright may have been thinking when he made a statement that most of us would consider ludicrous. It also shows why someone could give Reverend Wright the benefit of the doubt when setting in his congregation. For those that don't know what Jae is talking about here are some links.

Tuskegee Study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study)

CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm)

Tuskegee University (http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/Story.asp?s=1207598)inb4 liberal bias/conspiracy

GarfieldJL
10-15-2008, 12:47 PM
From your own cited article: "But Biden said he didn’t think there was anything intentionally personal in the ad."

Also: "But as the moment went viral, hitting the internet traffic engine the Drudge Report, Biden revised and extended his remarks in a statement — saying he hadn’t even seen it when he condemned it."

Wonder how they twisted Biden's arm to get him to backtrack. Cause that ad did target McCain's war injuries about him not being able to use a computer so he is out of touch.

Well to me that's more than a little out of line, considering he can't use a computer because of physical injuries he suffered while serving in defense of this country.

As far as McCain trying to be civil and keep the attacks from getting out of hand, it's because McCain gave his word to try to keep it a civil and respectful campaign on his end. Fact is though, Obama apparently can't keep his word nor can he tell the truth unless it benefits him.

Go to church some day and you'll notice that it involves more than a pastor and a sermon. I'm not going to explain why Obama went to a certain church for 20 years because it would be speculation. Why don't you go ask him instead of dishing out conjectural smears?

I have gone to a church whose pastor started spewing stuff out that my family and I viewed as objectionable, and my family and I left that church immediately and never went back to that church.

In all honesty, at this point I wouldn't believe anything Obama says on the subject because he's changed his story several times. From Wright being his father figure and spiritual mentor, to just his pastor that they disagree on things, to he isn't the man he knew.

So as far as smearing him, I really don't even have to smear him, he smeared himself with his own bad judgement and bad associations.

The second Rev Wright started to spew that stuff, Obama should have confronted him, and the next sermon he heard it in, he should have left. If he had done that, this wouldn't be an issue.

Instead he lied, he tried to explain it away, it was finally when Wright basically called him a typical politician that would say anything to get elected, is when he finally disavowed Rev. Wright. And even then he didn't leave the church until Pastor Pfleager (sp?) (another radical connection)started bashing Hillary Clinton when he was giving a guest sermon.

ET Warrior
10-15-2008, 01:41 PM
it's because McCain gave his word to try to keep it a civil and respectful campaign on his end. I'm sorry, perhaps I am confused, but whose campaign has been so negative that their supporters shout things like 'terrorist' and 'kill him' at rallies?

GarfieldJL
10-15-2008, 01:55 PM
I'm sorry, perhaps I am confused, but whose campaign has been so negative that their supporters shout things like 'terrorist' and 'kill him' at rallies?

It's funny how people try to hold McCain responsible for his supporters, yet Obama can't be held accountable for the people he willingly associates with, gives money to, works for, sits in their church for 20 years etc.

Anyone else noticing the double standard?

ET Warrior
10-15-2008, 02:03 PM
I hold McCain accountable for the way that he has run his campaign, and for having a running mate who intentionally incites the crowds into that kind of fervor.

GarfieldJL
10-15-2008, 02:11 PM
I hold McCain accountable for the way that he has run his campaign, and for having a running mate who intentionally incites the crowds into that kind of fervor.

I don't hold him responsible for his running mate telling the truth.


Bill Ayers is a friend of Obama (despite what Obama has tried to deny and hide).

Bill Ayers is an unrepentent terrorist.

Bernadine Dorn is Bill Ayers' wife and is also an unrepentant terrorist.


Therefore if you follow where this is going Obama pals around with terrorists, and he was associating with them after it had come to light what all they had done.


So I see no reason to condemn Governor Palin for telling the truth.

Found some more interesting reading:
http://earlytoday.wordpress.com/2008/08/09/illegal-obama-donors-middle-eastern-arabs/

ET Warrior
10-16-2008, 01:37 PM
You don't hold her accountable for working the crowd into a frenzy shouting 'terrorist' and 'kill him' and then smiling and winking when they do? Because that is neither civil nor respectful, and contradicts your earlier statement that McCain is running just such a campaign.

Additionally, in the week of September 28 - October 4 nearly all of McCain's ads were negative (http://wiscadproject.wisc.edu/wiscads_release_100808.pdf)

I am not saying that Obama has been 100% positive, and I'm not saying he's without fault, although you seem to be trying your hardest to insinuate that John McCain is.

GarfieldJL
10-16-2008, 02:02 PM
You don't hold her accountable for working the crowd into a frenzy shouting 'terrorist' and 'kill him' and then smiling and winking when they do? Because that is neither civil nor respectful, and contradicts your earlier statement that McCain is running just such a campaign.


I don't hold her accountable for pointing out that Obama pals around with Terrorists, ACORN, Islamic Extremists, the fact he got campaign money from Hamas.

Despite dropping the groundbreaking bombshell story of "Palestinian" brothers from the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza who donated $33,000 to Obama's campaign, no big media picked up the story. Jihadis donating to Obama from Gaza? Could there be a bigger story? Foreign donations are illegal, but this story was all that and so much more. The "Palestinian" brothers were proud and vocal of their "love" for Obama. Their vocal support on behalf of "Palestinians" spoke volumes to Obama's campaign.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_donor_contributions_sil.html

Donations of this nature would violate election laws, including prohibitions on receiving contributions from foreigners and guidelines against accepting more than $2,300 from one individual during a single election, Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the Federal Election Commission, told WND in response to a query.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71431

Giant Graffiti
10-18-2008, 10:47 AM
Please provide one example of where Obama has attacked McCain's character, patriotism, devotion to country...heck, provide just one example of where Obama has "attacked" McCain on anything that wasn't a campaign issue. Please try again.

Do you mean something that he actually said or one of his ads? If so... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ2I0t_Twk0&e)

Achilles
10-18-2008, 12:46 PM
Alright, there's one candidate for a truly "negative" ad (let's concede that it is for the sake of argument). Is that all? Just one? Compared to how many from McCain?

Giant Graffiti
10-18-2008, 01:37 PM
Achilles, you have strange tactics. ;) I have a question, could you send me a link to all the <video> ads from McCain which you say are attacking Obama on non-campaign issues?

Achilles
10-18-2008, 02:01 PM
Achilles, you have strange tactics. ;)Really? Strange how?

I have a question, could you send me a link to all the <video> ads from McCain which you say are attacking Obama on non-campaign issues?

<snipped aggressive comment> Please everyone, lets play nice, no need to take swipes at each other over political savvy, or perceived lack of. - j7

All of them? Probably not. Here are some of them though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iSku9yBvZc (lies about Obama's tax plan after Obama has corrected him several times)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONfJ7YSXE5w (Bill Ayers is a personal attack, fueled by lies. Not a campaign issue.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mopkn0lPzM8 (Mocks Obama as a christ figure. Not a campaign issue)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9JNna5EmJg (More Ayers. Arbitrarily ties Obama to the housing crisis. I'm assuming that this particular ad had RNC funding, hence the split message).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjEKRIBDv6Q (Accuses Obama of being dishonorable and dishonest i.e. direct personal attack).

Here are five of the nine videos on the front of McCain's YT page. There are more. During the first week of October, McCain ran the last two almost exclusively, which lead to a few of the independent media outlets to report that McCain's campaign had gone "100% negative".

Of course, this doesn't even mention the robo-calls (which we're discussing in another thread), the mailers he's sent, or the commentary offered at his rallies.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-22-2008, 04:32 AM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AL_QAIDA_US_ELECTION?SITE=VAROA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

GarfieldJL
10-25-2008, 07:34 PM
Okay I've got some other names to throw in and apparently a dinner party as well.
Rashid Khalidi - Former PLO operative, anti-semite

So, the LA Times has video of Obama attending a Jew bash and toasting a radical former PLO operative, and they are not sharing it with the public. I think we all know they would immediately release the tape if it were Sarah Palin making the toast.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2008/10/25/la-times-witholds-video-obama-toasting-former-plo-operative-jew-bas