McCain and Obama

[Rich]

Here is an interesting study for those of you convinced that all media shows a liberal bias.

The Conservative Advantage In Syndicated Op-Ed Columns

 

[ScottGardner]

(Are you scared yet?)

Nope. My skin has gotten pretty thick jousting on stereophile...

 

[HsvToolFool]

Okay, back from a weekend roadtrip.

WHERE DOES THIS CIVIL WAR GARBAGE COME FROM?

Of course, I'm not referring to this election cycle when
speaking about a pending American civil war. A major
clash is inevitable sometime in the next 50 years due to
the mutually exclusive nature of freedom and socialism.
If I had to pick a point of origin for the pending crisis, it
would be 1913 when the 16th Amendment enabled personal
income tax.

The battle over Big Government vs. Freedom was lost
long before we were born. We've tried to find a balance
between liberty and the ill-defined concept of "fairness"
for 95 years, but socialism is now clearly out of control.
You only need to look at levels of government waste
and deficits to recognize that the "slippery slope" has
become a rocket sled to Hell. We've clearly strayed too far
from the basic principles of liberty and a major correction
is brewing.

Unlike practically everyone else in the world, Americans
have weapons and can fight back when the government
oversteps its bounds. Consider this with the fact a large
minority of Americans remain truly dedicated to the
priciples of limited government as laid out by our
Constitution. Perhaps 30% are still "liberty or death"
types. While this group is not vocal and has little say in
politics, their tolerance for encroachment on personal
liberties is near an end.

I don't know what will touch it off, but it will be an event
which everyone can identify with on a personal level like
the recent attacks on Joe the Plumber by the Democrats
and Press. It will be preceded by a buildup of blatantly
Unconstitutional rulings like Kelo vs. New London
coupled with even more clamps on free speech like
McCain-Feingold and the noxious fairness doctrine.
I also expect abuse of power atrocities like the Waco
Massacre to become more common.

 

[HsvToolFool]

Actually, this rift was healed for a very short time. After 9/11, this nation really came together...

So Afghanistan was the "good" war while Iraq was the
"bad" war. As if they were not related in any way.

And honestly Brian, I see some of that hate in your words. The way you spit out the word leftist like it is an expletive.

And there's condescension in yours.

I calls 'em like I see 'em. The mindset behind Ward
Churchill's "Little Eichmans", the "Bush is Hiter" parades,
and rampant anti-semitism coming from the Left has torn
the liberal mask for me and others. Honestly, Leftists are
vile people. No closet aristrocrat is more il-liberal,
regressive, and close-minded that a Leftist. It's a religion
which doesn't think it's a religion.

But I don't necessarily equate "Leftist" with "Democrat",
if that's what you mean. Joe Lieberman and McCain are
examples of Democrats. Pelosi, Reid, Hillary, and Obama
are Leftists. The Democratic Party has been taken over by
the DailyKos, Democrat Underground loony Left.

Like it or not, a good 1/3 of the nation feels very differently than you do. That's a hundred million people in this country.

That's the point I'm making regarding civil war. About
80 million Leftists will eventually clash with about 80
million Libertarians.

Brian, please cite for me a time in our history (hell, in anyone's history) when this wasn't the case.

Clearly there's never been a time in human history when
every last single person agreed. Who's arguing that?
Mr. Straw Man again?

There have been decades when 80%+ were pretty much
on the same page and civil war was unthinkable. WWI and
WWII come to mind. But that's "Nationalism" which is
bad, evil, wrong according to Leftists. We must do away
with all those outmoded ideas. We're not "Americans"
any more, we're "Citizens of the World". Kumbaya.

Anyway, I recognize symptoms similar to 1840s America
regarding fundamental issues which people are willing to
fight and die for. Like the right to own property, accumulate
wealth, and pass that wealth on to your home-schooled
children. We'll see if the Leftists are ready to die for
Nationalized Health Care.

These are real human beings and as such they will have biases that will find their way into reporting.

And yet the media pretends that no bias exists. Only a
holier-that-thou Leftist from Columbia School of Journalism
could summon the ego and arrogance it takes to claim to
be totally unbiased and their positions defato centrist and
normal.

Perhaps the problem you have is that anything left of extreme right seems very liberal to you...

Who defines "right" and "left"? Who sets the mid-point?
The fair-minded, resonable moderates? What's a moderate in the
context of encouraging our soldiers to go AWOL? Is that
sedition or protest? Perhaps the problem you have is that
anything right of Karl Marx seems very conservative to you.

Rush, Sean Hannity, and Neil Boortz are not centrist by my
definition. Or theirs, for that matter. They are forthright
about being conservative. Ann Coulter makes her money by
being as flamboyantly irritating to Leftists as possible, but
she's never claimed to be centrist or unbiased. No doubt
she'd take that as an insult.

Rush directly reveals his formula for success. He rarely does
more than read the most extremely Left-biased, misleading
headlines and then points out the actual facts of the story
which are always buried in the next-to-last paragraph.
If there were no Leftist bias in media, Rush would be out
of a job.

The Libertarian Party claims about 200,000 registered voters, out of a population of over 300 million. So yes, those views are certainly in the minority and don't get a lot of press.

As conservatives learned with Perot in 1992 and leftist
learned with Nader in 2000, protest votes guarantee the
opposition party a victory. The Libertarian and Green
Parties are scuttled for the foreseeable future for this
reason.

Regardless, I don't find the bias of the press nearly as much of a concern as you do. I think we have much bigger problems than that in our country.

The press is the public's eyes and ears. If you can't trust
your senses, how do you make decisions? Why is Obama
allowed to be a cipher? We now know more about Joe the
Plumber's past than Obama's.

So, a more accurate description of this survey is that, of the 1,700 people surveyed, 53% felt that the media has a liberal bias. This is slightly more than half.

You are correct. The results were displayed in a very obtuse
manner. The breakdown was 83% saw bias, 11% saw no
bias, and 6% missing? So 64% of 83% is 53% which saw
left-wing bias, and 28% of 83% is 23% which saw
right-wing bias.

Not exactly a resounding endorsement of your point.

Actually, 53% vs. 23% strengthens my point. Thanks!

The most significant numbers to me were that 97% of
Republicans and 17% of Democrats perceived left-wing
bias...

"While Republicans were unified in their perception of a
left-wing media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain
the media skewed right – and 17% said the bias favored
the left."

I didn't know Obama and Ayers were in charge of these records.

Kenneth Rollings, an old buddy of both Obama
and Ayers, is the guy blocking the release. Since Rollings
has no interest at stake, it's obvious that he's trying to
protect Obama.

Beyond the allegations of missing funds, the documents
are the only records of Obama's tenure as an executive.
Was he good? Did he suck? Was he just a figurehead?
Inquiring minds want to know.

And if millions are missing, why don't the Annenbergs seem to mind?

The foundation never really did much. It was suppose to
spread leftist agendas in Chicago area schools. But it
appears they just funneled money to politicians and lefist
groups to buy elections. Surprise! ACORN was a big
beneficiary. I guess we'd know more if the records were
released and investigated.

You never acknowledged my question about why republicans weren't up in arms that these big republican donors would associate with a terrorist like Ayers?

They never intended to run for President. Gaming the
Chicago political machine takes precident, regardless of
party affilliation. When they run for President, I want
them investigated and exposed.

Now it's your turn. Explain the extremists and anti-semites
in Obama's past. Long-term associations and friendships.
Silence. That is pretty much what I expected to hear from
you on that issue.

So, just out of curiosity, will you be voting for McCain . . . or for Barr? Or perhaps Baldwin?

McCain will try to make nice with everyone and get nothing
in return. Yet another Great Moderate Moment in History.

Obama will raise taxes thereby driving the economy
even further South.

There is a remote hope McCain would appoint at least one
Constitutionally-fundamental judge to the SCOTUS. The
nominee would adhere to his oath for a few years, but
would then turn retard like Stevens and Souter and start
creating law from the bench.

There is no doubt Obama would appoint an "international
law" retard like Stevens right off the bat.

McCain has decades of vetting in the Senate, so no closet
skeletons are likely to appear.

Obama likely has a Chicago-linked marxist or graft-lord
rattling in the closet waiting for his payoff. Or else.

McCain at 72 would be the oldest newly elected President
and could drop dead any moment.

Obama at 47 smoked 30 years with 10 years of recreational
drug use on top and could drop dead any moment.

I'll vote for Baldwin when he finally moves to France and
takes Janeane Garafalo with him.

 

[Len44]

Who defines "right" and "left"? Who sets the mid-point?
The fair-minded, resonable moderates? What's a moderate in the
context of encouraging our soldiers to go AWOL?

Please provide a specific, irrefutable reference regarding this statement. (I must note that generally you just seem to spout whatever the right-wing extremist nut-balls are currently lying about in lieu of factual, accurate, real statements.)

Rush, Sean Hannity, and Neil Boortz are not centrist by my definition. Or theirs, for that matter. They are forthright
about being conservative. Ann Coulter makes her money by
being as flamboyantly irritating to Leftists as possible, but
she's never claimed to be centrist or unbiased. No doubt
she'd take that as an insult.

Rush directly reveals his formula for success. He rarely does
more than read the most extremely Left-biased, misleading
headlines and then points out the actual facts of the story
which are always buried in the next-to-last paragraph.
If there were no Leftist bias in media, Rush would be out
of a job.

Great job! You throw up (pun intended!) so much loony crap that it would take a LONG time to respond to all your junkie posting... so I'll just do this one:

Rush is nothing more than a publicity-seeking ego-maniac who seeks to divide the country through hate-mongering. Anyone who listens to him on a consistent basis must be a real sicko, in my book.

Sean Hannity? Has completely lost touch with reality -- some might say unhinged -- and would be unlikely to recognize it if it smacked him up the side of the head. Hmmm...not a bad idea, that.

Neil Boortz? Who the hell is he? Never heard of him (and I think I'm pretty happy about that, actually).

Ann Coulter? Pathetic. And an outright liar. Consistently. Afraid to debate others, with good reason. Just another publicity hound (pun intended).

I'm sure they will all be belching forth even more extremist wacko hatred after Nov 4.

Jan 20, 2009: The End of an Error!!!

BTW, I, too, "...calls 'em like I see 'em."

 

[Scumurculum]

That's the point I'm making regarding civil war. About
80 million Leftists will eventually clash with about 80
million Libertarians.

Unlike practically everyone else in the world, Americans
have weapons and can fight back when the government
oversteps its bounds. Consider this with the fact a large
minority of Americans remain truly dedicated to the
priciples of limited government as laid out by our
Constitution. Perhaps 30% are still "liberty or death"
types. While this group is not vocal and has little say in
politics, their tolerance for encroachment on personal
liberties is near an end.

You are sounding more and more like those nutty militant survivalists.

There will not be a civil war because the extreme majority of people of both sides of politics are decent moderate people who just want to live their lives in peace.

It is a shame you cannot see that.

 

[tsmooth]

Leave it to South Park to bring us all together. The below is from the episode "I'm A Little Bit Country..."

-----

Cartman: I learned somethin' today. This country was founded by some of the smartest thinkers the world has ever seen. And they knew one thing: that a truely great country can go to war, and at the same time, act like it doesn't want to. [a shot of the crowd] You people who are for the war, you need the protesters. Because they make the country look like it's made of sane, caring individuals. And you people who are anti-war, you need these flag-wavers, because, if our whole country was made up of nothing but soft ***** protesters, we'd get taken down in a second. That's why the founding fathers decided we should have both. It's called "having your cake and eating it too."

Randy: He's right. The strength of this country is the ability to do one thing and say another.

Skeeter: Yeah, but... if it weren't for all you guys protesting, why everyone around the world would hate the American people instead of just the President.

Gerald: And if it weren't for you people flexing your arms, America could easily get taken over by terrorists or... or China.

Mr. Mackey: I guess we... owe you an apology.

Stuart: Eh-ah, I guess we owe you one.

Townsfolk: Awww. [amid a chorus of awwws they hug each other.]

Kyle: Cartman? Cartman saved the day?

Stan: Can't be

Cartman: The Founding Fathers want you all to know that we can disagree all we want, as long as we agree that America kicks ass.

-----

Now all BS aside, we will endure. If Obama, a democratic Congress and Senate take over, so be it. That is what a majority of Americans believed was right on November 4th, 2008. The great thing is that in two years we again have the power to change The House and Senate depending on our candidates ACTIONS. The way I see it, he has two years to prove what Democrats “believe” he is. Then, if things work out, 4 years from now we can grant him another term if we see fit.

If McCain wins, with a probably a democratic Congress and/or Senate, the same holds true. If he sucks, then vote for a more Democratic Congress and Senate in two years. If we find that The House and Senate are getting in the way of the President, we speak through showing up and voting. And if the guy is still alive and wants to run again , so be it.

 

[HsvToolFool]

Please provide a specific, irrefutable reference regarding this statement.

Anyone else notice I'm the only person in this discussion
doing exactly that? The red, underlined text in my posts
are "hyperlinks" to sources and articles which give ample
data for you to investigate each subject further. Names
lead to other articles which lead to more names...

I didn't bother posting specific examples of gratuitous
troop-bashing and sedition masquerading as "dissent".
It's been commonplace over the past several years. Are
you truly unaware of what's been said and done to support
the Leftist anti-war effort? I'll take the other side for that
reason alone.

Then again, it's not hard to believe you could be totally
ignorant of these more extreme and infamous anti-war
"protesters" and their vile behaviors. What causes major
outrage in some circles is dismissed as trivial in others.
More anecdotal evidence of the widening gulf between Left
and Right.

Anyhoo..

The most notorious group openly calling for soldiers to go
AWOL is the Iraq Verterans Against War group (of fake
soldier Jesse Macbeth fame).

But it's hard to believe the Courage To Resist morons
aren't in prison already. This is literally the textbook
definition of sedition. Bush is really Hilter, eh?

Former State Dept employee Ann Wright was detained for
handing out flyers promoting an "AWOL as dissent" themed
video at Ft. McNair. Retired Lt Colonels know better, so she
was probably trying to achieve martyr status. Another
melodramatic idiot. Ms Wright and Valerie "Haven't been an
undercover agent in 12 Years" Plame's husband Joe Wilson
demonstrate the need to reform/abolish the State Dept.

Another tidbit of sedition were jackasses Gary Grossman's
and James Skelly's open letter inviting "dissent" among our
troops.

Code Pink also crossed the sedition line in Berkeley and outside
Walter Reed hospital.

Murtha...what an obscene old tool. FDR would have prosecuted
this clown for sedition so fast it would've yanked his triple-chin
to his knees.

Wow! It's amazing what you forget in just four years. Henry
Waxman's district appears to be Hollywood, so it's no surprise
this moment of open treason had no effect on his re-election.

Of course, Pelosi and Dhimmi Carter also toe the sedition line.
It's like totally the In-Thing to do! All the cool Lefties go
overseas and bash their own country!

And we can't forget that Obama himself was treading very
thin ice meeting with Iraqi President Talabani earlier this
year. We all hope it was an innocent mistake a neophite
might make, but his disregard for the appearance of arrogance
and impropriety were appalling. You're a young US Senator.
Tour the bases. Talk to the troops. Do a photo-op with some
free Iraqis. Don't attempt secret deals to undermine the
foreign policies of your Commander In Chief and affect the
upcoming election. People back home tend to notice things
like that.

You are sounding more and more like those nutty militant survivalists.

However, I am disciplined enough to stick to the debate
and refrain from making similar but opposite comments
regarding posts like yours and Len's.

 

[HsvToolFool]

Now all BS aside, we will endure. If Obama, a democratic Congress and Senate take over, so be it...

Gee, I don't know. Maybe we should sue for recounts in
every other county and parish, start "selected not elected"
and "not my president" campaigns, then finally call him
Satan and Hitler and burn little effigies while ranting and
moaning in public like nap-shy three-year olds hovering
near a Walmart candy display.

Nah, never mind. We'll go with what you said.

 

[Kenscollick]

The definative answer

Forget the fact that McCain is old and a republican of that Barack is young and inexperienced. It all depends on what you drive. [for our Australian friends there was no mention of those that drive on the wrong side of the road]
What do you drive? I have a Durango




Oct.27
2:20 PM ET New Presidential Poll: McCain (SUV) In Dead Heat With Obama (Mini)
Posted By:Jane Wells
Topicsresidential Politics (2008) | John McCain | Barack Obama

Mel Evans
John McCain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the presidential candidates were cars, John McCain would apparently be an SUV, Barack Obama a Mini. Kelley Blue Book surveyed vehicle owners about their presidential preferences in hopes of predicting a winner. Turns out this election is too close to call!

Republican John McCain scored highest with people who own American cars made by GM [GM 5.45 -0.50 (-8.4%) ]and Ford [F 2.03 0.02 (+1%) ] especially those who own GMC vehicles, Buicks, Chevys, Dodges, and Fords. He also scored well with luxury drivers who own a Lexus or a Lincoln. He got his biggest vote of confidence from drivers of full-sized trucks (66 percent), and full-sized/luxury SUV's (61 percent). Hence, the support for "drill, baby, drill."


CNBC.com
Barack Obama
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Democrat Barack Obama scored well with owners of imported and hybrid vehicles. Seven out of ten Mini owners are pro-Obama, with nearly the same high marks coming from owners of Subarus and Saabs. He holds a ten-point lead among Honda[HMC 19.02 -1.60 (-7.76%) ] owners, and a nine-point lead among hybrid vehicle owners. He also outscores Sen. McCain among owners of station wagons, hatchbacks, and crossover vehicles.

Why does none of this surprise me? "Car ownership says a lot about a person, and can even be an indicator who they are likely to vote for," says Rick Wainschel, Kelley's Senior VP for marketing and analytics.

SO...WHO WILL WIN?
Kelley Blue Book used similar surveys in 2000 and 2004 to predict George W. Bush would win both elections. I asked for this year's prediction and was told, "it's a dead heat with McCain at 47 percent and Obama at 46 percent, so therefore we are not predicting a winner this year."

 

[Scumurculum]

Gee, I don't know. Maybe we should sue for recounts in
every other county and parish, start "selected not elected"
and "not my president" campaigns, then finally call him
Satan and Hitler and burn little effigies while ranting and
moaning in public like nap-shy three-year olds hovering
near a Walmart candy display.

Well if Obama wins by a scant few hundred votes in a rather controversial manner in a state where his brother was Governor and the electoral official was openly democrat.

You would have every right to and I expect no less.

However, I am disciplined enough to stick to the debate
and refrain from making similar but opposite comments
regarding posts like yours and Len's.

All have said of this forum is that most (extreme majority) Americans a moderate reasonable peace loving people.
So if you make a similar but opposite comment, what would you be saying?

hmmmm?

 

[Rich]

A major clash is inevitable sometime in the next 50 years due to the mutually exclusive nature of freedom and socialism.

You are joking, right? Socialism is a socio-economic system of government. Freedom is a nebulous concept regarding personal liberties. You are contrasting apples and oranges. You can contrast socialism with Capitalism. But not socialism and freedom. It is a non sequitur.

If I had to pick a point of origin for the pending crisis, it would be 1913 when the 16th Amendment enabled personal
income tax.

. . .

We've clearly strayed too far
from the basic principles of liberty and a major correction
is brewing.

And what "basic principles" would that be? Our country was founded on the principle that we would not have taxation without representation. We now have taxation with representation. How exactly is that in violation of your "basic principles" of liberty? And I must say during the time that the income tax has been in place, our country has done very well, our economy has chugged along nicely. We are still one of the greatest countries in the world to live. I think your doom and gloom predictions are a little overdone.

Perhaps 30% are still "liberty or death"
types. While this group is not vocal and has little say in
politics, their tolerance for encroachment on personal
liberties is near an end.

Methinks you overstate your numbers considerably. I would put the "liberty or death" types more like around 5% of our population. Maybe 10% at most but that is stretching it. You really think 100 million people in this country are "liberty or death" types? I am sorry but that is just completely off base. Way, way off base. The NRA only claims 4 million members, and plenty of those are just people that like to hunt or shoot guns, but are not "liberty or death" types.

I don't know what will touch it off, but it will be an event
which everyone can identify with on a personal level like
the recent attacks on Joe the Plumber by the Democrats
and Press.

You really think people telling the truth about Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, the unlicensed plumber who never intended to buy a plumbing business like he said, and who would have fared better under Obama's tax plan than McCain's, had he been honest enough to have used his real circumstances for his question to Obama, you really think that is going to set off a civil war? Right. And I've got a bridge to nowhere in Alaska to sell you.

So Afghanistan was the "good" war while Iraq was the
"bad" war. As if they were not related in any way.

Brian, are you really going to argue with a straight face the Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? Then you really are out there. This administration pursued any bit of intelligence possible to try to make the public case to go into Iraq, which was already a foregone conclusion by the President. They manipulated intelligence, tried to bully the intelligence community into bolstering weak intelligence, and flat out lied about intelligence solely to try to connect Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda so that they could invade Iraq.

They barely got started in Afghanistan before they took their focus away and put it on Iraq. And what do you provide us as "proof" that Iraq was related to 9-11? A report, which states:

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.

Saddam collaborated with "known affiliates" of al Qaeda and other Islamist terror groups? Duh! So did Syria, Pakistan, Libya, Iran, and a host of other countries. You didn't see us invading all of them did you? Pakistan was busy selling nuclear secrets to Libya and North Korea and Iran, the latter two of which were working to build nuclear weapons. But you didn't see us invading them, did you? Gee, what was it about Saddam Hussein that caused us to go into Iraq? Perhaps it was a blood feud, since Hussein had once tried to have Bush's father assassinated. Perhaps it was just greed and a chance to get Multinational oil companies back in control of Iraq's oil. But I assure you it had nothing to do with al Qaeda and 9-11.

And by the way, I don't call one the "right" war and one the "wrong" war. I call one the necessary war and one the unnecessary war. War is an awful thing and it results in a lot of civilian casualties (hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in this case) and it should be avoided whenever possible. The job of our military, as you would know, being a strict interpreter of the Constitution, is to defend our country, not to invade other countries to bring them freedom and democracy. The Iraq war was absolutely unnecessary, and any reasoned military mind would tell you that. Many of them told Bush that at the time.

Honestly, Leftists are vile people.

No moreso than a lot of right-wingnuts.

Sorry, but Lieberman and McCain are not "democrats." They are switch-hitters. They straddle the center and go back and forth depending on which way the political winds are blowing on any particular issue. Pelosi, Reid, the Clintons, etc. are true hard-line liberal democrats. Sorry if you don't like 'em, but that is who the democratic party is and has been for a pretty long time.

Clearly there's never been a time in human history when
every last single person agreed. Who's arguing that?
Mr. Straw Man again?

Who created the straw man again? My comment was a response to your argument that the press should be this utopian non-biased reporter of fact. My point is that it has never been like that and never will. Why do you choose to ignore my comments and argue against some completely different concept?

Perhaps the problem you have is that anything right of Karl Marx seems very conservative to you.

Do you think so? Let's see . . . I'm pro-choice, but I am also pro-death penalty. I am pro-first amendment, but I am also pro-fourth amendment. I believe in my right to own firearms, and own over a dozen. But I also believe in reasonable regulation of that right. I believe in property rights and am against eminent domain except where absolutely necessary, but I do believe in reasonable regulation of what I can do on my property to ensure that I don't hurt the property rights of my neighbors. I am pro-capitalism, but I feel business must be reasonably regulated to protect consumers and the general population. I am for freedom of religion, and I am for freedom from religion. I absolutely believe religion should be kept out of our government and our schools. I voted for Clinton, and will vote for Obama, but I also voted for Governor Riley and Senator Shelby. Does that sound like I am a leftist, socialist, communist? If so in your eyes, then so be it. You have a very narrow view of the world and it is shared by very few people around you.

Actually, 53% vs. 23% strengthens my point. Thanks!

No, actually, 53% saw a left-wing bias (which was your point) and 47% saw no bias, saw a right-wing bias, or didn't answer the question. As I said, hardly a ringing endorsement of your point. If the media bias was as prevalent as you claim, I would expect something like 75%/25%. Barely over fifty-fifty just doesn't say that much.

Kenneth Rollings, an old buddy of both Obama
and Ayers, is the guy blocking the release.

According to the document you linked, it is the University blocking the release, not Rollins. Get your facts straight. Rollins requested the documents not be released, but as your story points out he has no authority to keep them from being released. So it is not Rollins, it is not Ayers and it is not Obama. It is the University. Again, you spread innuendo and rumor instead of relying on fact.

And what about the Annenbergs?

They never intended to run for President.

Nice dodge. So Ayers is a leftist socialist terrorist and Obama is just as bad for "associating" with him but the big republican donors that funded the Annenberg organization, we don't care about them because they aren't running for president?

Now it's your turn. Explain the extremists and anti-semites
in Obama's past.

I honestly haven't seen anything from you about Obama's past "associations" that gives me pause. Besides, from what I have seen of your perspectives, anybody leaning slightly left of center is an extremist.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hey Rich,

Just wanted to clarify something.

Did Brian or someone else say that "leftists are vile people" as you quoted in your most recent post.

My oh my. I must admit my personal politics tends to venture towards the left side versus the right. Based on that, I guess I'll call myself a "leftist".

The last seven years or so of Republican rule would suggest that Dems (or left as some may say) may not be vile but perhaps, somewhat enlightened given what has occurred over the the last seven years or so.

Well, I guess I will add vile to my name when people are describing who I am and what I believe in.

Hope all is well with you and fam.

G

PS: My sincere apologies to those who may think I am a vile person because of my political beliefs. Where is Joe McCarthy when you need him?

 

[Rich]

Did Brian or someone else say that "leftists are vile people" as you quoted in your most recent post.

Gordon,

Yeah, that was Brian. The entire quote, in context is:

I calls 'em like I see 'em. The mindset behind Ward
Churchill's "Little Eichmans", the "Bush is Hiter" parades,
and rampant anti-semitism coming from the Left has torn
the liberal mask for me and others. Honestly, Leftists are
vile people. No closet aristrocrat is more il-liberal,
regressive, and close-minded that a Leftist. It's a religion
which doesn't think it's a religion.

But I don't necessarily equate "Leftist" with "Democrat",
if that's what you mean. Joe Lieberman and McCain are
examples of Democrats. Pelosi, Reid, Hillary, and Obama
are Leftists. The Democratic Party has been taken over by
the DailyKos, Democrat Underground loony Left.

Emphasis mine

I agree that it is sad that we can't seem to disagree about political and economic philosophy in this country without belittling, degrading, and dismissing each other's humanity. It is exactly that kind of holier-than-thou guns-and-religion attitude that fuels the kind of racial hatred that spurs young white boys to join white supremacist groups and decide to go on a murderous rampage.

Perhaps those are the civil war revolutionaries Brian is thinking of.

 

[VanDaRo]

I agree that it is sad that we can't seem to disagree about political and economic philosophy in this country without belittling, degrading, and dismissing each other's humanity. It is exactly that kind of holier-than-thou guns-and-religion attitude.....

Rich,

Sad isn't it? I find that when discussing this campaign at work much of the same crooked logic/non-sequitur/strawman arguments pop up again and again by those desperately trying to defend the McCain philosophies. But I disagree with you on the point of ad hominem. Here on this site we haven't fallen completely into the gutter and resorted to name-calling or other nastiness. This has largely been a spirited debate. Nothing more.

Anyway, I don't want to belabor the point. I'd rather get back to discussing the issues. Don't forget to vote !!


~VDR

 

[twich54]

Don't forget to vote !!

Sent my ballot in last week........Pat Paulsen is still alive....right ??? LOL !

 

[Rich]

What do you say about a would be president that has had some of the associations that Obama has had? Nothing, but the FEAR FEAR FEAR thing? At least recoginize that Brian makes some valid points.

I have not seen the words "socialist" and "associations" used to slander someone so much since the era of Joe McCarthy! McCain's campaign has been entirely based on creating fear of Obama and has utterly failed to address the real issues important to most americans. Why would I give validity to such ridiculous notions by responding to them. When someone produces one act by Obama that proves Obama is a socialist, a terrorist, or somehow plans to destroy America, then I will respond to it. But the whole, "well he knew this person that spouted off these terrible words, so he must be terrible" crap is not worthy of an intelligent reply. G. Gordon Liddy, convicted felon and known planner of terrorist acts, held a fundraiser for McCain at his house and McCain appeared on his radio show and talked about how much he respected him. Are you questioning McCain's character based on that "association?" Then give it a rest.

Obama will need to answer the questions about some of these associations at one point or another. If the press was doing there job he would be doing it now.

I'll say it again. Obama appeared on O'Reilly's show, one of the most biased conservative commentators in the media. Did O'Reilly just not "do his job" or did he recognize that perhaps there were more relevant topics to discuss than this crap? Has McCain appeared on a show as liberally-biased as O'Reilly is conservative? I doubt it.

 

[VanDaRo]

John McCain or Sarah Palin on the Keith Olbermann show...Yikes !! It gives me the heebie jeebies just thinking about it.

~VDR

 

[HsvToolFool]

You really think people telling the truth about Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher...

Eureka. I honestly didn't see that coming from you, but
now I know exactly who I'm speaking with. All your posts
make perfect sense in this new context. I was misled by
something you said earlier in this thread. Something to the
effect of, "we have the same goals but different opinions
on how to achieve it." Not true. We don't all want the same
thing, especially you and I.

Socialists dehumanize "the rich" to justify confiscating as
much of their income and wealth as possible. Ostensibly,
those funds are used to help the "working poor" get by
and better themselves. But it's really all about power and
control.

So if a rich socialist politician blunders on his campaign
trail, it's reasonable to demonize a guy who was just
minding his own business in his own yard. Rather than
deal with a silly campaign mistake like a man, it's unleash
the dogs to "tell the truth" about a blue-collar Dad. This is
"Monica Was A Crazy Stalker" all over again.

Hey, expand the investigation. Dig into the son's records.
He may not be an honor role student. In fact, he may have
been...gasp...suspended for fighting. It may not have been
a football they were tossing around. Such discloure will surely
undermine Joe's dissenting opinion on Obama's proposed
tax hikes. A random opinion solicited by a rich politician
who arrogantly assumed a "labor-class" man would agree
with his agenda.

I will always side with the individual, especially where
invasion of privacy abuses are concerned. But not you.

Your stance on this matter makes it obvious that this
discussion was a huge waste of time. I've had too many
similar exchanges since Clinton's felony was exposed.

I originally typed responses to everything as usual, but
I've deleted most of it. I'll respond to a few final items
because I can't bear the disinformation to go uncorrected.
But there's no point to continue this nonsense. I've been
through this before and know what you'll say before you
say it.

Brian, are you really going to argue with a straight face the Iraq had anything to do with 9/11?

Nobody made that silly argument to justify removing
Saddam. Not Bush or any member of his admnistration.
The burden of proof is on you. Post a link to the speech where
Bush, Colin Powell, Rice, or another cabinet member asserted
direct ties between Saddam and 9-11.

The "War on Terror" doesn't mean get Al Qaeda only. They
are not the only Islamic terrorist group. No doubt an Islamic
Jihad dirty bomb would kill just as many as an Al Qaeda
design.

The link I provided named several terrorst groups Saddam
indeed courted and funded, some of which...surprise!...had
ties to Al Qaeda. The information in the article has been
studies and vetted ad nauseum for 8 years.

They manipulated intelligence...

"They" includes Colin Powell. But you sure seem to love
him now though, don't you? Bill Clinton, Gore, Hillary, and
Kerry all told the exact same "lie" about Saddam's terrorist
connections before Bush took office. Until their politically
convenient reversal which everyone is now supposed to
forget.

They barely got started in Afghanistan before they took their focus away and put it on Iraq.

Rewriting history now. Oh, I regret this collosal waste of time.

Two years passed between 9-11 and Iraq. Leading up to
the Iraq war, there was a 12-month period of multiple UN
Resolutions and deadlines which Saddam rejected, ignored,
or used stalling tactics. Afghanistan was relatively stable
with an interim government in place before Saddam's final
deadline passed and the Iraq war began. The present
democratic Afghan-elected government was in place within
a few months of Saddam's capture.

No doubt you also forget we gave the Taliban months to
hand over Osama before we invaded. Yes, America even
tried to avoid war in Afghanistan. The sequence of events
is blurred by time. Our military trounced the Taliban and
Saddam's Baathists so fast, it feels like both places went
from 9-11 directly to fledgling democracies in a day. But it
didn't happen that way.

You didn't see us invading all of them did you?

Israel waxed a Syrian nuclear weapons facility a few months
back. We just destroyed a terrorist safe-house inside Syria.
We've been hitting Al Qaeda in Northern Pakistan. A silent
war with Iran has been underway for at least a year. No
doubt we've secretly attacked terrorist training facilities
inside Iran. Speculation right now is that Israel will bomb
Iran's nuclear facilities before January should Obama be
elected.

By the strictest definitions, I agree that we've not invaded
them. Yet. But we are applying unwavering pressure for
reform and must continue to do so. No President can allow
another 9-11 to occur, and the origins of Islamic terrorism
are still obvious. Iran and Syria are still playing very stupid
games. Hopefully, the new dynamic created by a free Iraq
and Afghanistan will spread democratic reforms in the
region over the next few decades (especially in Saudi Arabia,
another Eddie Haskel pseudo-ally like Pakistan) so that the
cultural appeal of Islamic terrorism is eliminated peacefully.

Perhaps it was a blood feud...

Wow! You're one them, huh? That's a rarity in these parts.
Are you a "9-11 Truther" too? Am I correct to guess you
didn't grow up around here? You relocated here from a large
urban area, correct?

You have a very narrow view of the world and it is shared by very few people around you.

Pot to kettle. Don't you live near me? Given our location,
you and I know exactly the opposite is true.

No, actually, 53% saw a left-wing bias (which was your point) and 47% saw no bias...

From the article:


"...83% of likely voters said the media is biased in one direction
or another..."

"...just 11% believe the media doesn’t take political sides..."

"Nearly two-thirds of those online respondents who detected
bias in the media (64%) said the media leans left, while slightly
more than a quarter of respondents (28%) said they see a
conservative bias..."


83% + 11% = 94% total respondents (where did the other 6% go? Other bias, perhaps?)

83% x 0.64 = 53% detected right-bias

83% x 0.28 = 23% detected left-bias

53% + 23% = 76% who detected bias. (perhaps the missing 6% "other bias" goes here?!)

You can't subtract 53% perceived right-bias from 100% to
get 47% perceived left-bias. 53% right-bias + 47% left-bias +
11% no-bias = 111% total, which is clearly wrong.

Instead, you must subtract 53% from 83% to get about 20%
left-bias, which is close to what was stated directly in the
report. Zogby appears to round numbers, so it's more
accurate to work directly from the percentages they gave
rather than subtract. Does that not make sense?

Although my point stands, I wish I could locate the original
poll results on the Zogby site rather than this poorly presented
report. I'm curious where the missing 6% to 7% went.
I suspect there was an "other" bias choice which omitted
from the report.

According to the document you linked, it is the University blocking the release, not Rollins.

I'm not sure which link you mean. As I said, the records
have now been released after months of legalistic delays
caused by Obama's buddy Rollins. My first link on the
issue was the NewsMax article which states the records
were released a couple weeks ago. These records should
have been released the first time a request was made back
when Obama was running against Hillary. No one has had
time to research them.

The perception of Leftist bias in major media outlets by
Republicans has a clear source. You probably haven't
heard, but the LA Times is presently refusing to release a
video of an Obama speech at a farewell bash for former
PLO spokesman and buddy Rashid Khalidi. This dysfunctional
gala was attended by a bunch of radical Palestinian activists
plus former Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and
Bernardine Dohrn.

Surely Obama wasn't caught on video saying something
incriminating like taking anti-Israel positions or spouting
socialist dogma. Oh, surely not.

 

[risabet]

Israel waxed a Syrian nuclear weapons facility a few months
back. We just destroyed a terrorist safe-house inside Syria.
We've been hitting Al Qaeda in Northern Pakistan. A silent
war with Iran has been underway for at least a year. No
doubt we've secretly attacked terrorist training facilities
inside Iran. Speculation right now is that Israel will bomb
Iran's nuclear facilities before January should Obama be
elected.

By the strictest definitions, I agree that we've not invaded
them. Yet. But we are applying unwavering pressure for
reform and must continue to do so. No President can allow
another 9-11 to occur, and the origins of Islamic terrorism
are still obvious. Iran and Syria are still playing very stupid
games. Hopefully, the new dynamic created by a free Iraq
and Afghanistan will spread democratic reforms in the
region over the next few decades (especially in Saudi Arabia,
another Eddie Haskel pseudo-ally like Pakistan) so that the
cultural appeal of Islamic terrorism is eliminated peacefully.

This is right out of the neo-conservative handbook. Commit unilateral acts of war on foreign countries, couch it in the no more 9-11 mantra, try to force democracy (at the barrel of a gun) on foreign people to make them more like "us," and finally to utilize the "free" Iraq and Afghanistan lie to validate an indefensible position of "spreading democratic reforms."

The reality is that Bush's impulsive paroxysm of war-mongering has pushed Shiite dominated Iraq into Tehran's arms and the south of Iraq is now a functional theocracy. The only area of that country that is a functioning democracy is Kurdistan in the north and they were on that road without US help. The lie of a unified Iraq is based on the current administration's inability or unwillingness to READ A HISTORY BOOK of the region. Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, not to mention the minority Turkmen and others are not a recipe for unity, but one for the civil war you claim is coming.

The reality is that the next president (Obama most likely) has to change tack and rebuild our standing in the world. When the US is no longer seen as a hegemon, attempting to spread "Americanism" to every corner of the globe the threat of Jihad will diminish if not vanish. Regardless, we can scarce continue to be the world's policeman when we aren't doing much of a job defending our own Constitutional values such as habeas corpus, the right to a fair-trial, and the right to face one's accusers. Until fundamental issues of equal justice for all are implemented in US foreign policy the world will continue to view us, and rightly so I believe, as a bully.