DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: MissusDe on November 03, 2008, 12:46:44 AM
-
Victor Davis Hanson (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDUyMDhkZmY0YjRmMGRhOTE5NTY5YWVhZjBhNTNmYTU=)
Mr. Obama's Aunt Zeituni will not be a major campaign issue?compared to other last minute disclosures such as Obama's frightening boast about coal that now produces half of our nation's electricity: "If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
Yet in retrospect Aunt Zeituni will prove emblematic and raise a few disturbing questions (aside from the ethical matter of someone who was highlighted in a cameo fashion in his memoir as proof of his strong family ties, subsequently languishing as an illegal alien, in violation of a deportation order, in a public housing project a hour's flight from Chicago). Everyone has relatives that one is not responsible for, but given her symbolic appearance in Dreams from my Father, and at the Obama swearing in in 2005, Auntie Zeituni seems more in the Roger Clinton/Donald Nixon/Billy Carter category.
1) More proof of media bias: The press story is somehow now about who 'leaked' information that his aunt had defied a deportation order and was in the country illegally rather than yet another sign that US immigration law is made a mockery of, and its enforcement is a joke, to the rather limited extent the law is even applied. And if one wants to know the extent of government intrusion into the lives of peripheral political figures, the media should at least worry why agencies were put onto Joe the Plumber, who is a US citizen.
2) More of the double standard. David Axlerod is suddenly worried about supposed Axlerod-like leaks of government documents? Aside from Joe the Plumber, he should ask why and how the sealed divorce records of both Obama's Democratic primary rival and his general election Republican opponent were leaked, imploding both campaigns and ensuring the election of Obama in 2004 to the Senate.
3) Obama's has offered the defense that his historical rejection of campaign finance (after a promise to abide by the law), and subsequent creation of a $600 million war-chest should not cause worry because so many of the donors were "small". Hence any questions about fake names, addresses, lack of compliance with identifying donors by name, foreign contributors, and prepaid credit cards were essentially nit-picking or worse, given the historical lift Obama had given the American electoral process.
But if the Obama campaign cannot even guarantee that his own aunt followed the law (it is illegal for foreigners to contribute to US presidential campaigns), what does that say about the millions of others who, we are supposed to believe, on the now dubious assurance of Obama himself were supposedly legitimate and lawful donors? And as a sidelight, how ethical is it for someone who is in violation of immigration law, and receiving some sort of public subsidy, to then donate money, illegally again, to a campaign? Message: defy immigration law; ignore a deporation order; obtain, again illegally, public assistance; donate illegally to a presidential campagin; and then count on the press attacking those who worry about such serial flouting of the law.
4) Here we are within a few hours before the election, and we get yet another reminder that we have little idea who Barack Obama is; and the media, rather than enlightening us about his background, consistency in thought, past behavior, aassociates, and character, instead turns on anyone and anything that stand in the way of his ascension.
5) The only mystery? Whether we get (1) this is not the Aunt Zeituni I remember....; (2) I was only 43 when she was ordered deported and only 47 when she donated illegally; (3) I could no more disown Aunt Zeituni than...; (4) "they" are going to get "ugly" and go after my funny-sounding name and the fact I don't look like the presidents on the dollar bill.
Can't we hope this time for? 'As I have written, I have admired my aunt in the past and value her familial ties to me, and will now make sure that all US laws are followed in her case, and determine to what extent they were not and why, and ensure that this doesn't happen again.'
-
If it were my Aunt , I would send her a note , tell her to get a lawyer I would help pay for his time , there are leagal ways to get visa extentions.
-
I for one am shocked that this man, the nephew of such a major American criminal, has the nerve to show his face in public, let alone run for public office. Does anyone not yet realize that a vote for Obama is really a vote for the master criminal "Auntie" Zeituni, who is now only hours away from finally realizing her decades-long dream of controlling the White House through her puppet nephew? What do we really KNOW about the power behind Obama's throne, the sinister "Auntie" Zeituni? Whoever she is, and whatever she represents, can we be sure that al Qaeda is never far from her?
-
Apparently with Barry, charity doesn't begin at home.
-
I love the desperation of the Republicans as the long dark night of their administration draws to a long-desired close. Obama's terrifying criminal associations with "racist" preachers, "terrorist" educational theorists, "terrorist" Columbia Professors and now, "sinister" Aunties (?!) have all been thrown one after another at him without effect on a public tired of Republican lies and fear-mongering, and now in the utter frustration and desperation that has overtaken them, they're even going after BOTH his "terrorist" charities and his "stingy" charitable donations.
LMFAO. Make up your minds, guys, if he's REALLY giving his money to a bunch of "terrorist" charities, why lambaste him for the paltry amounts donated?
Or better yet, get used to the idea. PRESIDENT Obama.
Oh, maaaaan, tomorrow night's gonna be sweet.
-
*YAWN*
Non-story # 4835 that will eventually blow up in the right-wing's collective face.
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/gop-operatives-may-have-broken-law-s (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/gop-operatives-may-have-broken-law-s)
Another day, another gimmick. Republicans are digging out every possible turd they can find to fling and seeing what will stick on Barack Obama's wall -- and so far, no luck. Earlier this weekend they were peddling a dumb smear about Barack Obama's aunt being an illegal immigrant who had been ordered deported.
But there's one little problem with that tale: As the Washington Post reports, the release of that information was a violation of confidentiality laws for immigrants seeking asylum:
Federal privacy law restricts U.S. immigration agencies from disclosing information about citizens and permanent residents, and DHS policy similarly limits disclosures about the status of legal and illegal immigrants. Asylum-seekers are granted greater protection, because of the sensitive nature of their claims and the risks of retaliation.
In a statement, a spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said the matter has been referred to the agency's Office of Professional Responsibility and its parent department's inspector general.
"They are looking into whether there was a violation of policy in publicly disclosing individual case information," ICE spokeswoman Kelly Nantel said. "We can't comment on individual cases."
You would think that after literally MONTHS of attacking Obama in every way imaginable only to have their supposed smear blow up in their faces, the right-wingers would just try to end on a high note of positivity or even dignity but, of course, they have no way of imagining doing that.
Frellin' amazing.
And can someone remind me what happened to all those wailers and gnashers of teeth that cried every kind of foul when Palin's family was allegedly "attacked"? Now, those same wailers are pushing a story about some poor woman who is Obama's half-aunt being an illegal alien...?
REALLY?
-
>>You would think that ..........................................the right-wingers would just try to end on a high note of positivity............................<<
Ok.
McCain: I've supported McCain since, and including, his run in 2000. I've backed him on internet boards and put my money where my mouth was to the tune of several thousand dollars. I even sent in $300 on Saturday. Now that contribution is somewhat unusual because I decided about a month ago not to vote for McCain. The base on the right has become to damaging. Instead of trying to change the party from within, as he did in 2000, he has danced to their tune this time and will most likely lose because of it.
Obama: I'm going to vote for him. I don't have a crystal ball to tell me what kind of president he'll be, but his campaign has been far superior to McCains. I can't tell you how good his decisions will be but if they're off it won't be for a lack of brains. I can't promise that his election will help raise the self esteem of African Americans in this country, but I bet it will. And I can't promise you that the views of the rest of America towards African Americans will inch up the scale, but I bet it does also. Not that it needs to inch up much because we're almost there anyway. I'm hoping that his election will put the final nail in the coffin of a long and difficult chapter in American history and that closer to all of us will be seen as potential contributors to this Republic that I was born in, and bled for.
-
I love the desperation of the Republicans as the long dark night of their administration draws to a long-desired close. Obama's terrifying criminal associations with "racist" preachers, "terrorist" educational theorists, "terrorist" Columbia Professors and now, "sinister" Aunties (?!) have all been thrown one after another at him without effect on a public tired of Republican lies and fear-mongering, and now in the utter frustration and desperation that has overtaken them, they're even going after BOTH his "terrorist" charities and his "stingy" charitable donations.
LMFAO. Make up your minds, guys, if he's REALLY giving his money to a bunch of "terrorist" charities, why lambaste him for the paltry amounts donated?
Or better yet, get used to the idea. PRESIDENT Obama.
Oh, maaaaan, tomorrow night's gonna be sweet.
Well I guess President Obama and his fucking mumba dance troupe donations is better than President Castro... at least this idiot will have 'cultcha'
-
I think you'd all better prepare for a huge, anti-climactic let-down. After all the apocalyptic accusations of race hatred, "socialism" (particularly hilarious to anyone who has ever seen any kind of real socialism in action,) disastrous "inexperience," Tony Rezko "criminality" and, finally, support of "terrorism," you will all be waiting for the catastrophe that never arrives. After a few weeks, it will finally sink in - - this guy is no further left than Bill Clinton, and won't even be providing any of the vicarious sexual thrills that Clinton was able to furnish for the supermarket tabloids. BORE-ring. Before you know it, you'll have to be looking around for somebody new to demonize.
-
I think you'd all better prepare for a huge, anti-climactic let-down. After all the apocalyptic accusations of race hatred, "socialism" (particularly hilarious to anyone who has ever seen any kind of real socialism in action,) disastrous "inexperience," Tony Rezko "criminality" and, finally, support of "terrorism," you will all be waiting for the catastrophe that never arrives. After a few weeks, it will finally sink in - - this guy is no further left than Bill Clinton, and won't even be providing any of the vicarious sexual thrills that Clinton was able to furnish for the supermarket tabloids. BORE-ring. Before you know it, you'll have to be looking around for somebody new to demonize.
That's why I am glad Brass and the wife are prepared for the inevitable disappointment to come.
-
>>You would think that ..........................................the right-wingers would just try to end on a high note of positivity............................<<
Ok.
McCain: I've supported McCain since, and including, his run in 2000. I've backed him on internet boards and put my money where my mouth was to the tune of several thousand dollars. I even sent in $300 on Saturday. Now that contribution is somewhat unusual because I decided about a month ago not to vote for McCain. The base on the right has become to damaging. Instead of trying to change the party from within, as he did in 2000, he has danced to their tune this time and will most likely lose because of it.
Obama: I'm going to vote for him. I don't have a crystal ball to tell me what kind of president he'll be, but his campaign has been far superior to McCains. I can't tell you how good his decisions will be but if they're off it won't be for a lack of brains. I can't promise that his election will help raise the self esteem of African Americans in this country, but I bet it will. And I can't promise you that the views of the rest of America towards African Americans will inch up the scale, but I bet it does also. Not that it needs to inch up much because we're almost there anyway. I'm hoping that his election will put the final nail in the coffin of a long and difficult chapter in American history and that closer to all of us will be seen as potential contributors to this Republic that I was born in, and bled for.
Good to hear from you, BSB. Nice to know that you are level-headed unlike most rightwingers!
-
Brass wrote:
>>Nice to know that you are level-headed unlike most rightwingers!<<
Said the man with the point on his head.
-
Said the man with the point on his head.
Whatever.
-
The base on the right has become to damaging. Instead of trying to change the party from within, as he did in 2000, he has danced to their tune this time and will most likely lose because of it.
Finally!
Someone else understands where I'm coming from on McCain. I think that while his swerve to the right may have brought in some of the Republican fold, it's alienated the independants and moderates who were always McCain's core constituency. But I haven't given up hope yet, it looks like he's going to get my vote tomorrow.
-
Glad to hear it, Fat 8)
-
Someone else understands where I'm coming from on McCain.
I don't understand this. It seems your largest issue is gay marriage and Obama has flat out stated that he believes marriage to be between one man and one woman and he bases this on his religious beliefs.
Yet Palin is the thumper?
Why does Obama get a pass on this issue?
-
test
-
Hmmm..., I did that because in another thread when I tried to post it kept telling the body of the message was empty.
-
Someone else understands where I'm coming from on McCain.
I don't understand this. It seems your largest issue is gay marriage and Obama has flat out stated that he believes marriage to be between one man and one woman and he bases this on his religious beliefs. Yet Palin is the thumper? Why does Obama get a pass on this issue?
Because the MSM keeps repeating her comments, laying the perception that she's the thumper, while ignoring Obama's perhaps?
-
FM is fairly knowledgeable. I am curious what his viewpoint might be since the issue directly affects him.
-
After a few weeks, it will finally sink in - - this guy is no further left than Bill Clinton,...
That would be bad enough if it were true , but really , who in the country is to the left of BHO?
I think that everyone to his left at all was too far into the wings to get elected.
-
I don't understand this. It seems your largest issue is gay marriage and Obama has flat out stated that he believes marriage to be between one man and one woman and he bases this on his religious beliefs.
Yet Palin is the thumper?
Why does Obama get a pass on this issue?
Because the MSM keeps repeating her comments, laying the perception that she's the thumper, while ignoring Obama's perhaps?
FM is fairly knowledgeable. I am curious what his viewpoint might be since the issue directly affects him.
I'm not sure what you're asking BT. In about 6 hours when I take an early lunch to hit the ballot box, I'll be casting my vote for McCain. I don't know if I would consider gay marriage my biggest issue, I have a lot of others competing for my attention too, mostly issues that most voters don't consider, i.e. resource management on Federal lands. But I post a lot on gay marriage issues and gay rights issues in here because that's what I'm comfortable in sharing my knowledge in, as you mentioned it's something that affects me directly, whereas whenever I've posted on issues regarding the Forest Service or fisheries it doesn't get much response.
By no means am I giving Obama a pass, if I were, I'd probably vote for him. As you mentioned, he opposes gay marriage and Biden voted for DOMA, which McCain did also. I've posted in here before about how a lot of Dems/liberals play lip service to gay rights, but when they have the chance to affect change we end up with nothing, or worse yet, a compromise that in many ways is worse than the original policy, such as Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I tend to think that McCain will be a one term Pres if elected, and that would allow him to break with some of the wishes on the far right. I trust him to break with the far right more than I trust Obama to break with the far left. I don't like either choice, but after reviewing the various other candidates, that's my decision. There are liberal Republicans, and I've always considered myself more or less belonging to that philosophy.
As for Palin, you're right, I don't generally like her. There are some things that I do like about her, but her negatives (in my opinion) outweigh the positives. She gives me the same creepy feeling that I used to get about Huckabee, I don't have a problem with religious people per se, but I do have a problem when they are in a position to use those views to influence public policy, especially on gay rights. Time will tell if my perceptions are valid or flawed.
I don't post about Obama/Bidens positions on gay rights, because generally they're crap. Until I see a party actually become pro-active on those issues, I will hold to that opinion. But just because I post on Republican positions and not the Democratic ones doesn't mean that I'm blind to their position or that I'm giving a pass, but I do like to highlight the hypocrisy of a party/ideology that advocates the removal of government influence in our lives using legislation and constitutional amendments to limit or deny me and others like me a basic human right. I guess I'm a cynic in that sense.
One of these days I'll post my thoughts on how Goldwater conservatism morphed into this conservatism that we have today, which is less of a governmental conservatism than a social one.
-
The purpose of my query was not to lock you into a candidate. Obama or McCain, follow your instincts.
My query was more conversational. I know and you know both parties pander to whomever will get them votes.
But I do see a lot of damning of the GOP for their position vis a vis the definition of marriage but i don't see a lot of posting about dems who advocate one thing and then vote in the opposite direction.
And I just wanted to know if you observed the same thing.
Consider it a reality check on my part. Validation of my own observations if you will.
-
I see a whole bunch of diehard rightwingers poised to be sore losers no matter what President Obama does.
-
I see a whole bunch of diehard rightwingers poised to be sore losers no matter what President Obama does.
Payback's a mother
-
Boy, ain't that gonna be the truth. There was not a damn thing Bush ever got credit for, and it started even before he even took office. "Stolen election" and it's offshoots for 8 years, and not 1 piece of positive acknowledgement. In the dictionary under "sore losers", you might see a picture of a "diehard leftwinger"
-
<<I trust him to break with the far right more than I trust Obama to break with the far left. >>
THAT'S what drives me nuts - - the false equivalency made between McCain and his ties to the far right and Obama and his "ties" to the "far left."
Obama doesn't have "ties" to the far left - - Ayers was somebody he met long after his (Ayers') days of bombing and armed struggle were over, Wright was his preacher with whom he felt comfortable for many years, and whose angry rhetoric, as Obama made clear in one of his most memorable speeches, was pretty much standard-issue in many black churches, and Khalidi was an interesting and intelligent professor who, as a fellow academic, Obama socialized with and sometimes benefited from his baby-sitting. NONE of these guys were active in any way in Obama's Presidential aspirations or campaign. Apart from the inspiration that Wright may have provided, none of them played any key role in Obama's ascent.
McCain, OTOH, has a long and ugly history of right-wing and even terrorist associations, from the World Anti-Communist League, a haven for Nazis and Nazi collaborators, sponsor of Central American death squads, and contributor to the Nicaraguan Contras, on whose American affiliate's Board of Directors McCain served, to crooks like Charles Keating and far-right preachers like John Hagee, whose endorsement McCain was forced to spurn only after Hagee proclaimed that Adolf Hitler had been doing "the Lord's work." This rabble wasn't some casual series of happenstance connections, they were all integral to the advancement of McCain's career.
-
"Stolen election" and it's offshoots for 8 years, and not 1 piece of positive acknowledgement.
The election WAS stolen, Juniorbush got fewer votes
Other than his AIDS assistance, Juniorbush has been eight long years of utterly unprecedented incompetence, stubborness, and hatefulness.
He lied his way into a war he had no idea of how to end, and then did zip to keep the economy going. His preformance was so utterly pitiful that his own party refused to have him attend its convention, mentioned him about twice, and nominated a bogus "maverick" to run against his miserable record.
-
See what I mean?....the epitome of a sore loser
-
Is any valid criticism of Bush possible (i.e., has he done ANYTHING wrong?) or is every single thing that XO complained of merely the imaginary grievances of a "sore loser?"
If all the griping is merely "sore losers" being sore, how come all the Republicans are running from Bush as fast as their little legs can take them? Does that mean that every Republican figures the mass of the American people are themselves either "sore losers" or dumb enough to fall for the "sore losers'" con? Doesn't say much for the Republicans' respect for the intelligence and wisdom of the people they want to lead.
-
The purpose of my query was not to lock you into a candidate. Obama or McCain, follow your instincts.
My query was more conversational. I know and you know both parties pander to whomever will get them votes.
But I do see a lot of damning of the GOP for their position vis a vis the definition of marriage but i don't see a lot of posting about dems who advocate one thing and then vote in the opposite direction.
And I just wanted to know if you observed the same thing.
Consider it a reality check on my part. Validation of my own observations if you will.
I think part of it has to do with the fact that Republicans used the issue to great effect in 2004 with the notion of a US Constitutional Amendment. It was never going to happen, and anyone who sat down and thought about it understood that, but it worked well to get evangelicals to the polls. Technically speaking, Bush and Kerry had virtually the same policy concerning same-sex marriage - but Bush was held up by the right (fairly or not) as a "defender of marriage."
I completely agree. The Democrats take advantage of that voting block. The truth is that a more libertarian view is the only valid view in my opinion. Homosexuals should be allowed to be married. Why not? The so-called compromises are worse than the ban altogether because they hearken back to the days of "separate but equal."
-
Valid criticism is ALWAYS possible. If you hadn't noticed he gets it plenty from "rightwingers" as well. The issue is the 24/7 perservation that anything Bush does must be bad, that he hasn't accomplished anything, that he's a failure in everything, never once providing any concession to anything he's done in office -----> which is bascially's Xo's so called insinuation of a sore loser
And you'll note, I haven't run from Bush, merely criticized him when it was appropriate to do so. You're referring to politicians that live & die by poll #'s, to which I care very little for in representing my interests
-
I think Bush has been notably good for life issues, with the glaring exception of the death penalty. Otherwise he has been one of the best presidents and few to actually go beyond lip service with regards to abortion and embryonic stem cell research. I find some fault with his view of using warfare, but otherwise his record here has been good.
-
And has we have all referenced before, you're one of the more rationally minded Libs around here, Js. You don't fit the template that messers Xo, Tee, and Brass, live in
-
Recently, given the tensions of the election, I think that all of us have been guilty to contributing to the negative atmosphere in here.
No one has a monopoly on "right" or "good." We all need reminding of that sometimes.
-
<<The issue is the 24/7 perservation that anything Bush does must be bad, that he hasn't accomplished anything, that he's a failure in everything, never once providing any concession to anything he's done in office -----> which is bascially's Xo's so called insinuation of a sore loser>>
Then it's a fake issue - - most of the criticism of Bush is fairly specific - - lying the country into war being of course the worst of his many crimes, also Katrina, the tax cuts for the rich paired with the expenses of the war, the financial meltdown and the $800 billion "rescue" plan.
They're all solid accusations and even if the causes may be arguable, the number and the depth of the disasters that befell the country on his watch are staggering. Why do these accusations have to be "sore losers?" You're claiming that Bush had nothing to do with any of it? Who the hell was President when the shit hit the fan?
<<And you'll note, I haven't run from Bush, merely criticized him when it was appropriate to do so. You're referring to politicians that live & die by poll #'s, to which I care very little for in representing my interests>>
Yeah, but that wasn't my question. Why do Republican candidates who "live & die by poll #'s" (in your own words!) run from Bush like he's carrying Ebola virus, if he's so innocent of all the accusations? Are all the Republican candidates so devoid of backbone that none will defend a President who is so innocent of all those "sore loser" accusations?
-
<<The issue is the 24/7 perservation that anything Bush does must be bad, that he hasn't accomplished anything, that he's a failure in everything, never once providing any concession to anything he's done in office -----> which is bascially's Xo's so called insinuation of a sore loser>>
Then it's a fake issue - - most of the criticism of Bush is fairly specific - - lying the country into war being of course the worst of his many crimes, also Katrina, the tax cuts for the rich paired with the expenses of the war, the financial meltdown and the $800 billion "rescue" plan.
They're all solid accusations and even if the causes may be arguable, the number and the depth of the disasters that befell the country on his watch are staggering. Why do these accusations have to be "sore losers?" You're claiming that Bush had nothing to do with any of it? Who the hell was President when the shit hit the fan?
<<And you'll note, I haven't run from Bush, merely criticized him when it was appropriate to do so. You're referring to politicians that live & die by poll #'s, to which I care very little for in representing my interests>>
Yeah, but that wasn't my question. Why do Republican candidates who "live & die by poll #'s" (in your own words!) run from Bush like he's carrying Ebola virus, if he's so innocent of all the accusations? Are all the Republican candidates so devoid of backbone that none will defend a President who is so innocent of all those "sore loser" accusations?
Well then what can we suppose President Gore would have done to better prevent the 9-11 attack or prepare for the Katrina storm damage?
I kinda suppose he would have done about as well as Clinton did at these preparations when Gore was his partner.
-
<<The issue is the 24/7 perservation that anything Bush does must be bad, that he hasn't accomplished anything, that he's a failure in everything, never once providing any concession to anything he's done in office -----> which is bascially's Xo's so called insinuation of a sore loser>>
Then it's a fake issue - - most of the criticism of Bush is fairly specific.
Minus of course the grotesque distortions, hyperbole, and lying, that's precisely what I'm referring to. Picking specific issues, and drumbeating them 24/7, all the while completely ignoring those aspects that have been postive during his tenure
Why do these accusations have to be "sore losers?"
Because it fit's Xo's template on how the President, in this case Bush, was being burned in effigy, even before he took office, and since validated by the non-stop condemnations, minus any sense of objective assessment of the good things that have occured. No terror attacks since 911, record tax revenues initially generated by the tax cuts, low unemployment for the vast majority of his administration, Iraq's violence down at its lowest since we went in, Surge obviously having been successful, Conservative leaning administrations now in France, in Germany, in Canada even. I mean, I could go on, but suffice to say, Bush gets zip credit on any of it
You're claiming that Bush had nothing to do with any of it?
No, you're not paying attention. As usual. I'm saying he's been a either a part, or merely President during everything the last 8yrs, both good and bad. And needless to say, I don't agree with your hyperbolic premises, so we can gloss right passed those
<<And you'll note, I haven't run from Bush, merely criticized him when it was appropriate to do so. You're referring to politicians that live & die by poll #'s, to which I care very little for in representing my interests>>
Yeah, but that wasn't my question. Why do Republican candidates who "live & die by poll #'s" (in your own words!) run from Bush like he's carrying Ebola virus, if he's so innocent of all the accusations?
Accusations & poll #'s frequently go hand in hand, in DC. I have yet to see much validity to either
-
<<Accusations & poll #'s frequently go hand in hand, in DC. >>
Yes they do.
<< I have yet to see much validity to either>>
Good, then I guess you don't think Obama's a terrorist, a Muslim, a reverse racist, a crooked politician, or a dope who got through Harvard Law on the basis of his skin colour. Or a communist or a socialist or an anti-Semite. Lemme see, did I leave out any accusations?
You are still dodging the question, I see. How come - - if these accusations against Bush are all BS and the poll numbers don't have much validity, all the Republican candidates are running away from the Shrub like he was an Ebola virus carrier? Is it their cowardice? their treachery? their stupidity? what?
-
Homosexuals should be allowed to be married. Why not? The so-called compromises are worse than the ban altogether because they hearken back to the days of "separate but equal."
==============================
This is perfectly logical. Why indeed not?
The reason is that most Americans do not think logically on issues like marriage and religion.
I recall a neighbor's friend visiting from u8p near Birmingham, AL was talking about how "there never was none a these problems back when we had prayer in the schools".
I asked her what sort of prayer she thought might be the most effective to prevent "all a those problems", and she seemed to ponder it for about ten whole seconds. Then she said, "I don't wanna talk about this no more."
But you know she would have voted for prayer in the schools, anyway. As I recall, she also liked George Wallace, Lester Maddox and Ross Perot.
-
<<Accusations & poll #'s frequently go hand in hand, in DC. >>
Yes they do.
Cool...concensus
<< I have yet to see much validity to either>>
Good, then I guess you don't think Obama's a terrorist, a Muslim, a reverse racist, a crooked politician, or a dope who got through Harvard Law on the basis of his skin colour. Or a communist or a socialist or an anti-Semite
You're right, I don't, and never have. His voting record and rhetoric do make him a hard left lib
You are still dodging the question, I see. How come - - if these accusations against Bush are all BS and the poll numbers don't have much validity, all the Republican candidates are running away from the Shrub like he was an Ebola virus carrier? Is it their cowardice?
BINGO. Poll #'s have that kind of effect, on many a politician. You must have missed the article (http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/10/24/mccain_the_stalwart) I provided a week ago, that addresses this point specifically.
-
They're all running away from Bush because he's a cancer on the lungs of human intelligence. No one with a brain has been able to breath for the past 8 years. We all know what hell is now. It's being led by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. The three musketeers.
-
BINGO. Poll #'s have that kind of effect, on many a politician. You must have missed the article I provided a week ago, that addresses this point specifically.
A typical Krauthammer screed that dopes not address the question at all.
-
I think Bush has been notably good for life issues...
Lol, yeah, just ask the Iraqis.
-
<<You're right, I don't [think Obama's a terrorist, a Muslim, a reverse racist, a crooked politician, or a dope who got through Harvard Law on the basis of his skin colour. Or a communist or a socialist or an anti-Semite ] and never have. >>
All right. Enough of this bullshit. Who are you really and where is sirs?
-
<<You're right, I don't [think Obama's a terrorist, a Muslim, a reverse racist, a crooked politician, or a dope who got through Harvard Law on the basis of his skin colour. Or a communist or a socialist or an anti-Semite ] and never have. >>
All right. Enough of this bullshit. Who are you really and where is sirs?
Care to provide even 1 quote, where I ever even implied otherwise?? You see Tee, that's your problem. In your mind anyone that doesn't think like you and is *gasp* a conservative, must by design claim Obama is all that, and more. Rational minded conservatives have rarely made such an inferrence, much less such accusations. All the while you bend over backwards to continue to make the outrageous accusations regarding Bush lying us into war, stealing elections, is a morronic version of Hitler, accusatory garbage like that. But you have this template, that can not and will not be disengaged. And that's unfortunate
-
<<Care to provide even 1 quote, where I ever even implied otherwise?? You see Tee, that's your problem. In your mind anyone that doesn't think like you and is *gasp* a conservative, must by design claim Obama is all that, and more. >>
LOL. Geeze, so that's how I think, huh? Whoah, I always wondered how I thought and now I know. From an authoritative source. Thanks, sirs.
<<Rational minded conservatives have rarely made such an inferrence, much less such accusations. >>
Damn straight. They let others make them for them. And never repudiate a word of it, as long as they think it's helping their campaigns.
<<All the while you bend over backwards to continue to make the outrageous accusations regarding Bush lying us into war . . . >>
Nothing outrageous about that, it is EXACTLY what happened and most people now understand that, even in the U.S.
<< . . . stealing elections>>
a perfect description of what happened in Florida in the 2000 Presidential election . . .
<<[Bush] is a morronic version of Hitler . . . >>
also more or less true; not as smart as Hitler, not as good an orator, not as courageous a warrior, not smart enough to write his own book, never had what it takes to rise up from the bottom; - - while both men are evil, and have blood on their hands, Hitler has a lot more blood and in all other respects out-classes Bush as well.
<< . . . accusatory garbage like that. But you have this template, that can not and will not be disengaged. And that's unfortunate>>
What REALLY is unfortunate are the blinders you walk around with all day long that just won't let you see the obvious.
-
so....no examples. Didn't think so.
-
I think Bush has been notably good for life issues...
Lol, yeah, just ask the Iraqis.
I think Bush could get elected in Iraq.
-
The purpose of my query was not to lock you into a candidate. Obama or McCain, follow your instincts.
My query was more conversational. I know and you know both parties pander to whomever will get them votes.
But I do see a lot of damning of the GOP for their position vis a vis the definition of marriage but i don't see a lot of posting about dems who advocate one thing and then vote in the opposite direction.
And I just wanted to know if you observed the same thing.
Consider it a reality check on my part. Validation of my own observations if you will.
Consider your observations validated. And I acknowledge your point about dems who advocate one way and vote another, I'm not blind to it. Yes, I do hit the GOP hard on their position, but I also try to give credit when they moderate too. I like to try and be objective, but there are times when I fail miserably. The more that I see the GOP harden into social conservatives, the less comfortable I am with the party, and I try to speak out about that whenever possible. It's probably grating to some, but that's where I'm coming from. I don't like the extremism in either party or either ideology.
So far BT it looks like your prediction is holding, this election is close.
-
I think Bush has been notably good for life issues...
Lol, yeah, just ask the Iraqis.
I think Bush could get elected in Iraq.
He should go there , therefore , posthaste !
-
So far BT it looks like your prediction is holding, this election is close.
I think Obama will win by a bigger margin than i originally predicted.
My town is usually 60-40 Red. We went 53-47 Red this time.
-
I'll predict roughly 335 +/- 10 votes for Obama at this point.
-
I think that CA and the West Coast states will up the popular vote for Obama, but I also think that the popular vote will be within 5-6%.