DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Kramer on August 21, 2008, 09:32:12 PM
-
.
-
John and Teresa own 5 homes worth in aggregate ~ $30M.
-
Ted Kennedy probably lives in a shack!
-
John and Teresa aren't running for anything, neither is Ted Kennedy. None of this BS changes the fact that Obama and his wife (the "elitists") own and live in only one home and McCain and his wife can't even answer the simple question of how many homes they currently own. Tells ya something about who's the "elitist" in this race.
-
McCain and his wife can't even answer the simple question of how many homes they currently own
Your lack of attention to details is amazing.
When was Cindy asked how many homes she or her corporation or trust owns?
As far as elitists go, Obama earned 4 million last year. McCain earned 10 times less.
-
<<Your lack of attention to details is amazing.>>
Nowhere near as amazing as your ability to shift the topic and confuse the issue.
<<When was Cindy asked how many homes she or her corporation or trust owns?>>
She wasn't. It was McCain who was asked how many homes he and his wife owned. And who could not answer that question. Even though it turns out that his tax returns show he paid over a quarter of a million dollars in one year to the workers who toil in the McCain homes.
<<As far as elitists go, Obama earned 4 million last year. McCain earned 10 times less. >>
I would EXPECT a highly intelligent ex-law professor to earn substantially more than a moronic ex-pilot, but as far as elitists go, I'd compare eight homes to one home any time any place, and similarly I'd have to say that the McCains' expenditure on domestic servants is, uh, highly impressive to say the least.
-
Even if that one home is the gift of a lobbyist?
-
<<Even if that one home is the gift of a lobbyist?>>
Hey, if McCain wants to raise the issue of lobbyists, that's FINE with me. I wouldn't do it if I were in his shoes, but then again, I'm not in his shoes. McCain's connections with lobbyists and his own activities in that field stretch from his Keating Five days all the way to his current campaign, where lobbyists for the Georgian government headed the campaign while McCain denounced the invasion of Georgia, saying not a word about Georgian provocations. Almost as if . . . naaaah, he couldn't be running for President of Georgia, could he?
-
<<Even if that one home is the gift of a lobbyist?>>
Hey, if McCain wants to raise the issue of lobbyists, that's FINE with me. I wouldn't do it if I were in his shoes, but then again, I'm not in his shoes. McCain's connections with lobbyists and his own activities in that field stretch from his Keating Five days all the way to his current campaign, where lobbyists for the Georgian government headed the campaign while McCain denounced the invasion of Georgia, saying not a word about Georgian provocations. Almost as if . . . naaaah, he couldn't be running for President of Georgia, could he?
No one complements Lobbyists , but who elese is paying for both conventions?
And many another thing?
McCain has a history of attempting to push Campaign reform that isn't popular with the rest of Congress , I would not worry that his history with Lobbyists would be any thing to worry about , if McCain is unqualified for his connections to Lobbyists then no member of the Senate is qualified.
-
where lobbyists for the Georgian government headed the campaign while McCain denounced the invasion of Georgia,
Not true.
-
<<No one complements Lobbyists , but who elese is paying for both conventions?>>
The question isn't who's paying for the conventions, but who campaign is HEADED by a lobbyist.
-
The question isn't who's paying for the conventions, but who campaign is HEADED by a lobbyist.
Both campaigns have people involved with lobbying. AKP (from whence Obama derives his campaign manager) is related (sharing offices and staff) to ASK, a lobbying firm.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/the-elitist-tipping-point_b_120736.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/the-elitist-tipping-point_b_120736.html)
Though it's nearly indefinable, elitism's like porn: you know it when you see it, and what somebody else likes doesn't necessarily turn you on.
And yet, we're electing the president of the US; still the most powerful person in the world. I don't want an underachiever working on my car's transmission. Why would I want someone regular sitting in the Oval Office? Sorry, give me somebody who's demonstrated a capacity to excel. The cliché gotcha question of journalist is asking candidates what's the price of a gallon of gas at a particular locale. Can the candidate demonstrate with a single answer that he (or she) is a person of the people? Brother, I don't care if the candidate knows the local price of gas. I care if he fully understands the metrics that drive up or down a barrel of oil.
So the question isn't how many houses John McCain owns. The question is: does he
-
<<No one complements Lobbyists , but who elese is paying for both conventions?>>
The question isn't who's paying for the conventions, but who campaign is HEADED by a lobbyist.
Whose is not?
-
<<Whose [campaign] is not [headed by a lobbyist]?>>
I dunno. You tell me. My information is that Obama's top campaign adviser is David Axelrod, a professional political consultant and head of a firm of political consultants, which is not at all the same thing as a lobbyist. If you have other information, please share it with us.
-
I dunno. You tell me. My information is that Obama's top campaign adviser is David Axelrod, a professional political consultant and head of a firm of political consultants, which is not at all the same thing as a lobbyist. If you have other information, please share it with us.
Mr. Axelrod is performing those services as a named partner of AKP&D, a professional political consulting group. Mr. Axelrod is also a named partner of a group known as "ASK", which shares offices and staff with AKP&D, and is a lobbying group. The "K" in both names is another named partner.
-
The next president does not need to know Excel, and I'm sure McCain doesn't know how to work it but that is what secretaries are for.
He wants to be leader of the free world but he's clueless about how to go online. He should have wanted to learn that basic skill by 1995.
Thats a man with very little intellectual or technical curiosity, not the guy who'll be making us energy self sufficient anytime soon.
By his own admission, the job is over his head.
-
As far as elitists go, Obama earned 4 million last year. McCain earned 10 times less.
You're not fooling anyone with that one.
McCain can play the role of the non elitist on a technicality created by sound estate planning.
When your wifes business is worth 100 million & you can't afford not to have it.
10 times less my ass.
-
10 times less my ass.
Is your ass saying McCain filed a false tax return?
-
Is your ass saying McCain filed a false tax return?
Did he?
Leona Helmsley filed a false one to save $40 grand. Nothing surprises me anymore.
It's tough to play the part of the piker when the wife you live with owns a $100 million dollar beer distributorship.
Does your ass agree with that...or is that debatable?
-
This is his return.
http://www.johnmccain.com/downloads/mccainfinancial/final/2006_FedReturn.pdf (http://www.johnmccain.com/downloads/mccainfinancial/final/2006_FedReturn.pdf)
He isn't claiming he is poor. I simply pointed out that in 2007 he earned 1/10th as much as Obama.
Mikey seemed to think income was relevant to elitism.
-
I think the incidents that started the "eleteist " problem for Obama had a lot to do with his attitude and what he said , but little or nothing to do with what he makes or owns.
In particular his remarks in San Fransisco that seemed to indicate a patroniseing attitude twards Gun owners and Church goers.
-
<<Mikey seemed to think income was relevant to elitism. >>
It's very relevant. McCain and his wife enjoy a combined income that dwarfs Obama's and Michelle's. McCain comes from money and Cindy comes from money. BIG money. McCain is descended directly from slave-owning planters. Michelle and Obama come from plain folk, Michelle probably from slaves, maybe even some of them owned by McCain's great-granddaddys or people just like them.
The most ludicrous and offensive claim to date is that Obama is an elitist. Anyone with an ounce of common sense and the most tenuous connection to the real world has to laugh.
-
The most ludicrous and offensive claim to date is that Obama is an elitist. Anyone with an ounce of common sense and the most tenuous connection to the real world has to laugh.
You are the one who painted Obama as the Ivory Tower candidate.
And since when is 4th generation military an automatic indication of wealth?
Was Eisenhower wealthy?
-
<<You are the one who painted Obama as the Ivory Tower candidate.>>
Please. I painted him as the Professor of Constitutional Law. The "Ivory Tower" came from your palette, as did the "elitist" as did the "out of touch" etc.
<<And since when is 4th generation military an automatic indication of wealth?>>
Admiral grandfather, admiral father . . . THAT is the indication of wealth. None of these guys are poor. I'm not talking about a son and grandson of engine-room stokers.
<<Was Eisenhower wealthy?>>
I dunno. Was he the son and grandson of generals?
-
Admiral grandfather, admiral father . . . THAT is the indication of wealth.
How so? What kinda moolah do they make?
-
<<Mikey seemed to think income was relevant to elitism. >>
It's very relevant. McCain and his wife enjoy a combined income that dwarfs Obama's and Michelle's. McCain comes from money and Cindy comes from money. BIG money. McCain is descended directly from slave-owning planters. Michelle and Obama come from plain folk, Michelle probably from slaves, maybe even some of them owned by McCain's great-granddaddys or people just like them. The most ludicrous and offensive claim to date is that Obama is an elitist. Anyone with an ounce of common sense and the most tenuous connection to the real world has to laugh.
Home, Er, Nods
By JAMES TARANTO
August 22, 2008
Four years ago, a young state senator from Illinois named Barack Obama delivered a very good speech at the Democratic National Convention, the first indication that he might have a big future in national politics. In one week Obama will officially be the Democratic nominee for president, and he owes it to the power of words.
But Obama wants us to judge his opponent, John McCain, by his deeds. And McCain has a lot of deeds--so many that he has trouble keeping track of them all, according to Politico:
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in an interview Wednesday that he was uncertain how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own.
"I think--I'll have my staff get to you," McCain told Politico in Las Cruces, N.M. "It's condominiums where--I'll have them get to you."
The correct answer is at least four . . .
Well, that's certainly helpful to McCain. The next time someone poses this question, he can say, "At least four," confident that he's giving the correct answer.
All in all, a pretty entertaining gaffe--all the more so because, although McCain is neither haughty nor French-looking, he did serve in Vietnam, and this calls to mind another resemblance to John Kerry*, who also married an heiress and also has vast real estate holdings (or, to be more precise, his wife has them, since the Heinz Kerrys, like the McCains, have a prenuptial agreement). The McCain campaign compounded the humor of the Kerry comparison when spokesman Brian Rogers told the Washington Post: "This is a guy who lived in one house for 5? years--in prison."
The Obama campaign, however, is doing its best to beat the life out of the joke. The Los Angeles Times reports that the candidate himself brought the subject up during a rally yesterday:
"I guess if you think that being rich means that you've got to make $5 million and if you don't know how many houses you have, then it's not surprising that you might think the economy was fundamentally strong," Obama told supporters at a community college in Chester, Va. "But if you're like me and you've got one house, or if you were like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so they don't lose their home, you might have a different perspective."
Is Obama borrowing material from Andy Borowitz? It sounds an awful lot like one of Borowitz's "list of approved jokes" about Obama:
A traveling salesman knocks on the door of a farmhouse, and much to his surprise, Barack Obama answers the door. The salesman says, "I was expecting the farmer's daughter." Barack Obama replies, "She's not here. The farm was foreclosed on because of subprime loans that are making a mockery of the American Dream."
It's possible that Obama was not joking but trying to make a serious point--in which case it was quite the non sequitur. Obama puts the threshold for "rich" at $150,000. By his definition there are a lot more rich people in America than by McCain's. Apparently in Obama's view, the more rich people there are, the worse the economy is doing.
Salon's Glenn Greenwald, who is sort of a less distinguished version of Andrew Sullivan, has a lengthy post in which he recounts the disparaging comments of "numerous leading right-wing pundits"--mostly Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh--about the Kerrys' wealth in 2004.
Although none of the quotes he offers come from President Bush, his campaign, or any other Republican politician or political operative, Greenwald asserts: "This is the kind of campaign the GOP runs every election." Then he adds, "It's good to see the Obama campaign, finally, engaging these issues aggressively."
We'd say Obama lacks the wit of a Limbaugh or Coulter, but hey, de gustibus non est disputandum. When Obama's supporters are cheering him for Coulteresque rhetoric, though, it's clear he's come down a notch or two from his stirringly idealistic 2004 speech. And although Greenwald obviously would never support Ann Coulter for president, what does it tell us about the Angry Left that he seems to view her skill set as a qualification for the job?
Beating a dead horse (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121942480772664091.html?mod=Best+of+the+Web+Today)
-
How so? What kinda moolah do they make?
Current O-10 pay grade runs around $170,000 per year.
-
So the highest ranking admiral makes about what a Senator makes.
-
Why not cut the bullshit and get to the point - - the admirals retire and go on to consultancies or other lucrative sinecures making much more than they ever got paid for prancing around in their snazzy little uniforms. A guy who is the son and grandson of admirals comes from a lot more money than either Michelle or Barak Obama ever saw in their wildest dreams. They came from a class in society that represents money and good living and in McCain's case goes back to Southern planters with lots of slaves. Slaves probably not unlike Michelle's slave ancestors.
So keep up with the "elitist" bullshit - - a son and grandson of Admirals and a great-grandson of slave-owning planters married to a billionaire beer heiress is fighting an uphill David-and-Goliath struggle against an "elitist" biracial guy born in obscurity, raised in poverty and married to the daughter of a Chicago municipal utilities worker and the descendant of slaves.
When I said you guys live in Bizarro World, I was not in the least kidding.
-
Let's parse your last post.
Admirals now make about 170k a year. McCain didn't make admiral so his military pay was a lot less.
Is McCain a trust fund baby?
You'll have to show how what his ancestors earned affects him.
McCain went to private school high school.
Obama went to private high school.
McCain went to Annapolis. The govt paid the freight.
Obama went to Occidental, then Columbia, then Harvard.
Who paid the freight?
Obama made 4+ million last year. McCain made 400k+ last year.
Michelle alone earns 300k year from the University of Chicago and from sitting on board directorships.
Obama sat on the board of directors for many organizations.
Obama's work experience comes from the Ivory Towers of academia.
So who is the elitist.
-
The difference of course is that McCain and Cindy come from big money, and Obama and Michelle came from the working class with no money behind them. McCain and Cindy come from the elite, Barak and Michelle come from real obscurity. What they have, they got with their own efforts and ambition. They weren't born to it and their families couldn't possibly have gotten them into it.
Your twisting and spinning to avoid these simple and obvious facts is funny, as are the dumb, dead-end questions you ask, proving nothing to anyone with an ounce of common sense and a grain of life experience in the real world. But please, go on trying to paint Barak and Michelle as the "elitists" in comparison to McCain and his wife, the beauteous Cindy. Why not go all-out to demonstrate that you and Reality are totally divorced and are never going to get back together in this lifetime?
<<You'll have to show how what his ancestors earned affects him. >>
Just one more example of the technique. That doesn't even deserve an answer. If life hasn't already taught you the answer to that "problem," I sure as hell couldn't - - and wouldn't waste the effort either.
-
Why not cut the bullshit and get to the point - - the admirals retire and go on to consultancies or other lucrative sinecures making much more than they ever got paid for prancing around in their snazzy little uniforms.
His grandfather died while still serving (just days after the Japanese surrender).
His father was still serving when McCain came home from Vietnam.
Even if his father made "lucrative" money during the few years he lived after retiring, McCain would not have been raised with that money, having already finished school and gone into the military. However, I can find no indication that his father had any career after leaving the Navy.
Incidentally, both his father and grandfather graduated near the bottom of their classes at Annapolis, and both were frequently in trouble with school authorities, so McCain apparently comes by it honestly.
-
Why not cut the bullshit and get to the point - - the admirals retire and go on to consultancies or other lucrative sinecures making much more than they ever got paid for prancing around in their snazzy little uniforms. A guy who is the son and grandson of admirals comes from a lot more money than either Michelle or Barak Obama ever saw in their wildest dreams. They came from a class in society that represents money and good living and in McCain's case goes back to Southern planters with lots of slaves. Slaves probably not unlike Michelle's slave ancestors.
So keep up with the "elitist" bullshit - - a son and grandson of Admirals and a great-grandson of slave-owning planters married to a billionaire beer heiress is fighting an uphill David-and-Goliath struggle against an "elitist" biracial guy born in obscurity, raised in poverty and married to the daughter of a Chicago municipal utilities worker and the descendant of slaves.
When I said you guys live in Bizarro World, I was not in the least kidding.
Every statement you make here is a supposition on your part and several of them are not so.
But even if they were all true , none of them speak to John McCains quality as a leader , which ought to be the issue.
What in his history defines his leadeership and how can it be compared apple to apple with BHO experience?
-
<<Every statement you make here is a supposition on your part and several of them are not so.
<<But even if they were all true , none of them speak to John McCains quality as a leader , which ought to be the issue.>>
Yes, I got side-tracked on the absurdity that John S. McCain III, son and grandson of admirals, great-grandson of a Mississippi planter with 2000 acres and 52 slaves, and his billionaire heiress wife are just plain folk but Barak and Michelle are "elitists." It was dumb of me to waste so much time on such fucking bullshit and I'm just gonna let it go.
McCain as a leader? Who was the guy who led the 400 into the Valley of Death in the Crimean War? Who were the guys who led Germany and Japan into total devastation in WWII? Were they leaders? Did people follow them?
What good is leadership if they don't know where to lead? When Bush was rounding up support for the Iraq invasion, based on non-existent dangers and non-existent WMD, it was McCain who agreed to invade and Obama who opposed the idea. What is leadership without vision? McCain wants to lead the nation into 100 more years of occupation if necessary, into drilling for oil in some of America's most environmentally sensitive regions and Obama wants to lead America into a more socially conscious state with better health care for the people. McCain's first impulses on the situation in Georgia were war, Obama was much more cautious about it. Who do you want to be led by?
-
McCain as a leader? Who was the guy who led the 400 into the Valley of Death in the Crimean War? Who were the guys who led Germany and Japan into total devastation in WWII? Were they leaders? Did people follow them?
Well .....I would indeed like to compare BHO to Lord Cardigan ,Tojo and Hitler .
Three very diffrent guys , who found three very diffrent ways to go very wrong.
Hitler won as a canadate of change , then it turns out that his idea of change was changing yours into mine with ultimate levels of violence.
Tojo was a caricture of Jingoism and Imperialism , he never doubted himself for a minute , he never let a disagreement stand , he was a steamroller.
Lord Cardigan did not take his job seriously enough to do his homework .
Does BHO avoid all the potential pitfalls of power?
He will , if he becomes president , become the worlds most powerfull leader , with little testing in his life to prepare him for it.
-
<<He will , if he becomes president , become the worlds most powerfull leader , with little testing in his life to prepare him for it.>>
Well, in this campaign already, I've seen that Obama gives cautious, thoughtful and nuanced answers whereas McCain is over-simplified, short and quick. Georgia being just one example.
On the One Big Issue (the Iraq war) McCain was dead wrong and Obama was right. McCain, the "maverick," followed the herd and Obama stood out against it and said "No." That combined courage and foresight.
I don't think there's a real contest in leadership. Obama as a law professor is careful and analytical. He can't be rushed into anything. So far none of the decisions taken by Bush required instant action, so the question of who's best to make snap decisions when there's no time for deliberation or analysis doesn't have any real application, and since McCain is a lot older than Obama and nowhere near as familiar as he is with analysis of complex problems, I'd trust Obama to make a better snap decision, should the occasion ever arise, than McCain. But for the 99.9999 % of all executive decisions that don't have to be made in an hour or less, I'd be much happier with Obama since he's clearly a much more intelligent man than McCain, and much more familiar with complex arguments and complex considerations of complex cases.
We live in a complicated world. You can't make a snap decision and expect it will work out. Complex situations and complex problems demand careful analysis and rational thought, a balancing of long-term and short-term considerations. Who's better qualified to make decisions, McCain or Obama? It's really a no-brainer. I really don't see how anyone, thinking now impartially and without bias, could think even for a second, that McCain would even come close to being Obama's match. Go with the smart guy, not the dummy.
-
Obama sounds like Carter. Is he a micromanager also?
-
<<Obama sounds like Carter. >>
In the sense that neither one of them shoots from the hip?
<<Is he a micromanager also?>>
I didn't even know that Carter was a micromanager. Professors usually aren't the micromanager type. They need someone to remind them to tie their own shoelaces, they aren't interested in making sure the other guy's shoelaces are done up. And they're used to the concept of using student researchers to cover all the angles and just co-ordinating and summarizing the results, rather than researching each aspect of the problem themselves. Of course if one of the student researchers came up with the conclusions that Saddam Hussein and his tiny nation had highly sophisticated deadly weapons and were a threat to the very existence of the U.S.A., I'd expect he'd go over that "research" with a fine-tooth comb before he bought into it. Analyze it right into the ground.
A good Professor can get a lot of students motivated to do a lot of good research work, review the results, critique them and send them out again to make the first drafts better. If he micromanaged every student researcher, nothing would ever get done on the larger scale.
-
So then Obama assigns his responses to the appropriate advisor and waits on their response?
Are they just slow responders?
-
(http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/7431/gm080824dx9.jpg)
-
<<So then Obama assigns his responses to the appropriate advisor and waits on their response?>>
Why would a prof tolerate slowness in his research assistants any more than he would tolerate dullness and stupidity in his students? First of all, he wouldn't pick a dummy like McCain to work on his problems, second, if he unwittingly picked a lemon, he could kick him off the team if everyone else is coming in with completed assignments on time and one guy is slowing them all down.
<<Are they just slow responders?>>
I don't get it. Are WHO just slow responders? Surely you're not implying that the nuanced answers that Obama gave at the Saddleback debate were the result of a team effort? The guy doesn't need a team to do EVERYTHING for him. His lectures are his own. In the give-and-take that usually follows a lecture, his responses to his students would be his own as well.
This whole "team" explanation followed a question as to what kind of leadership experience Obama had. I was giving an example of how as a professor, he would have had to organize research, class or group projects, etc. I did not mean that Obama couldn't or didn't function on his own without a team when it was appropriate to do so.
I happen to think that you're making a huge mistake in underestimating Obama's capabilities - - I really don't think you understand what kind of brain-power it takes to achieve the milestones he achieved, all on his own, without family support or influence, coming straight up from the bottom - - as a Columbia grad, as editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review, as Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. These are highly competitive positions, they're not available to any schmuck who walks in the door and asks for them. A guy like McCain couldn't even get his foot in the door, couldn't gain admission to any of those schools even as an undergrad. As his tenth-rate academic career clearly shows.
I wouldn't worry about Obama's "leadership abilities" - - I'd worry about McCain's. What kinda "leadership" did this guy show? Gets shot down and captured in Nam, spills the beans, broadcasts for the enemy; comes home and can't even keep his marriage vows, falls in with a fucking criminal like Charles Keating; takes in hook, line and sinker the fucking bullshit that Bush and his neocon advisers are putting out and votes for war with the rest of the herd, while Obama courageously and far-sightedly stands up and opposes the whole criminal venture as the crock of shit that it all too obviously is. THAT'S leadership? ? ? ? ? Are you shitting me?
-
I am heartened to see that you assign full responsibility for Obama's responses to Obama, and not some over eager staffer who didn't check with the boss before speaking.
But now that we have settled the responsibility question how do you explain Obama's 2 different statements concerning Georgia in two days.
1:"I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis."
http://www.barackobama.com/2008/08/08/statement_from_barack_obama_on.php (http://www.barackobama.com/2008/08/08/statement_from_barack_obama_on.php)
2:"I condemn Russia's aggressive actions and reiterate my call for an immediate ceasefire... Russia must stop its bombing campaign, cease flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia."
http://www.reuters.com/article/europeCrisis/idUSN09504234 (http://www.reuters.com/article/europeCrisis/idUSN09504234)
Is it that his core beliefs haven't solidified? Is he still a work in progress? Is the presidency really above his pay grade?
-
Nuance too strong , can't follow .
-
<<But now that we have settled the responsibility question how do you explain Obama's 2 different statements concerning Georgia in two days.>>
There's hardly any real difference between 'em. A little more neutral in the first, a little more anti-Russian in the second.
The usual sanctimonious blather I'd expect from any U.S. politician when they're not the ones doing the invading. Pandering to their moronic voters with a wholly unjustified sense of moral superiority and in the process giving democracy a bad name.
But you still haven't answered MY question - - how do YOU feel about the "leadership" of John Insane as described in my last post?
<<What kinda "leadership" did this guy show? Gets shot down and captured in Nam, spills the beans, broadcasts for the enemy; comes home and can't even keep his marriage vows, falls in with a fucking criminal like Charles Keating; takes in hook, line and sinker the fucking bullshit that Bush and his neocon advisers are putting out and votes for war with the rest of the herd, while Obama courageously and far-sightedly stands up and opposes the whole criminal venture as the crock of shit that it all too obviously is. THAT'S leadership? ? ? ? ? Are you shitting me?>>
You're not in the least worried about McCain's "leadership" abilities? I didn't even mention the flip-flops on abortion, the religious right, torture, etc.
-
Right now we are focusing on Obama. You claim he is just another politician, as you defend his blathering to the masses, yet that certainly isn't how he has marketed himself, so far.
And we have already debunked the notion that McCain grew up rich. We have already debunked your statement that McCain attended a college other than Annapolis, We are examining your undocumented claims that McCain was an unsatisfactory high school student unworthy of his appointment to Annapolis, we have called into serious doubt whether McCain ever called his wife a c**t and trollop. And just so you know Jim Hensley, Cindy's father, leveraged every penny he had to gather the 10k necessary to buy his distributorship.the year after she was born. Cindy wasn't born into wealth, his father earned it as she grew up. He was also a WWII veteran and recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross, injured in the line of duty.
-
Oh, yeah, one other thing about McCain and schools.
He was born in 1936. Graduated from high school in 1954 (18 years of age). Graduated from the Naval Academy in 1958 (22 years of age). So, to have gone to a 4 year college, then spend 4 years in the Naval Academy, and do it all in 4 years, he must be some kind of genius.
-
And also, from Wikipedia:
The United States Naval Academy is an undergraduate college in Annapolis, Maryland, United States, that educates and commissions officers of the United States Navy and Marine Corps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_Academy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_Academy)
Why would an undergraduate school accept graduate students?
-
<<Right now we are focusing on Obama. You claim he is just another politician, as you defend his blathering to the masses, yet that certainly isn't how he has marketed himself, so far.>>
So what? McCain marketed himself as a "maverick" when he's obviously a long-serving Beltway insider and as the "Straight Talker" when he's flipped on everything from torture to the religious right.
<<And we have already debunked the notion that McCain grew up rich. >>
You have done no such thing. He's a descendant of slave-owning planters and two admirals who went to a private Episcopal high school and the issue wasn't growing up rich (which he certainly did, as an admiral's son) but growing up as a member of the elite.
<<We have already debunked your statement that McCain attended a college other than Annapolis>>
A side issue although apparently an error. Of little or no significance. Actually, the net effect of my "error" is to demonstrate that McCain is even less educated than I initially gave him credit for.
<<We are examining your undocumented claims that McCain was an unsatisfactory high school student unworthy of his appointment to Annapolis . . .>>
The claim, if you can keep it straight for the next thirty seconds, which I seriously doubt, was that family connections and not grades were what got him into Annapolis.
<< . . . we have called into serious doubt whether McCain ever called his wife a c**t and trollop. >>
"Calling into serious doubt" apparently meaning that you can show it came from a Democrat.
<<And just so you know Jim Hensley, Cindy's father, leveraged every penny he had to gather the 10k necessary to buy his distributorship.the year after she was born. Cindy wasn't born into wealth, his father earned it as she grew up. He was also a WWII veteran and recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross, injured in the line of duty.>>
Well, just so YOU know, he was obviously another fucking crook just like his son-in-law, as this excerpt from Wikipedia makes crystal clear:
<<Following his discharge in 1945, Hensley and his brother went back to work for Marley in his United Sales Company in Phoenix and United Distributors in Tucson.[4][5] In 1948, both brothers were prosecuted by the federal government and convicted of falsifying liquor records to conceal illegal distribution of whiskey against post-war rationing regulations.[11][7] Jim Hensley received a six-month suspended sentence while his brother received a year in federal prison.[11] In 1953, Jim Hensley and Marley were charged by federal prosecutors with falsifying liquor records.[11] Defended by future Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, they were acquitted.[11][7]
<<In December 1952,[5] the Hensley brothers bought into the Ruidoso Downs racetrack in New Mexico, with Eugene running it and Jim returning to Phoenix.[4] In a May 1953 hearing before the New Mexico State Racing Commission, the Hensley brothers concealed the existence an equal partner, Clarence "Teak" Baldwin, who had been banned from any ownership role due to illegal bookmaking activities.[12] A 1953 New Mexico State Police investigation found further that Kemper Marley was a financial backer for bookmakers and had connections with Baldwin and with the bookmaking operations of organized crime,[12] a conclusion echoed decades later by the Arizona Project investigative reporting team.[13] >>
The article goes on to demonstrate that the year before Cindy's birth the two crooks (her father and uncle) had enough money to pay for a defence by William Rehnquist against Federal prosecution, so it doesn't sound to me like Cindy was growing up in any tarpaper shack on the wrong side of the tracks.
-
The article goes on to demonstrate that the year before Cindy's birth the two crooks (her father and uncle) had enough money to pay for a defence by William Rehnquist against Federal prosecution, so it doesn't sound to me like Cindy was growing up in any tarpaper shack on the wrong side of the tracks.
What were Rehnquists rates in 53? What would make him more expensive than any other defense attorney? He had just moved back to Phoenix and opened his own practice. Besides the business most probably paid the fees.
We ever find out who paid Obama's way from Hawaii to Occidental and then on to Columbia?
-
"Calling into serious doubt" apparently meaning that you can show it came from a Democrat.
No it means that Schecter was a sole source slurrer. No corroboration from normal people with names and a book deal in the works. In other words, Schecter was a paid hit man with a lot to gain.
Remember he didn't shop publishers, a publisher shopped him.
-
<<We ever find out who paid Obama's way from Hawaii to Occidental and then on to Columbia?>>
George Soros?
-
The reason I tend to believe Schecter is that nobody's sued him for libel - - they know he could subpoena in the eyewitnesses and the whole thing would backfire on McCain and on Cindy too, if she were minded to perjure herself to protect the louse.
-
You believe it because you want to believe it.
Even so, by your logic, the video CU posted about Obama must be true to because he didn't sue the guy either.
-
<<Even so, by your logic, the video CU posted about Obama must be true to because he didn't sue the guy either. >>
Are you kidding? The guy who claims he sucked off Obama ain't got a pot to pee in. That's why he was picked for the video. Nobody would sue him, they'd get bad publicity and no pay-off at the end. Even if they win they lose.
Schecter would be ruined if McCain sued him and won. He's got a reputation to lose and probably some assets as well. He's got a lot more to fear from a lawsuit than that guy in the Republican commercial.
-
He's got a lot more to fear from a lawsuit than that guy in the Republican commercial.
Source? What evidence whatsoever do you have that that was a republican commercial? Since it came out in the primaries it could be Hillary's.
Then again it could be just some guy with a video cam and a youtube account.
I doubt Schecter has a whole lot of assets either. He's a Olbermann clone without the job. He's a guest blogger, what's that pay? And don't you think filing suit would bring life to the lie? Why is it a bad idea for McCain not to sue but brilliant strategy for Obama not to.
Mikey your responses are getting weaker and weaker by the day.
-
<<Source? What evidence whatsoever do you have that that was a republican commercial? Since it came out in the primaries it could be Hillary's.>>
I just saw it here for the first time. Besides, it's more in the Republicans' style. They have no lower limit. I thought they'd hit bottom with the Swift Boat campaign, but this one's in the same vein only lower still.
<<Then again it could be just some guy with a video cam and a youtube account.>>
This guy isn't gonna smear Obama and vote Obama, he's gonna smear Obama and vote McCain. That's how it usually works.
<<I doubt Schecter has a whole lot of assets either. He's a Olbermann clone without the job. He's a guest blogger, what's that pay? >>
He's got a BOOK DEAL. And aren't you sucking and blowing at the same time? He's lying to make a killing selling his book but McCain can't sue him cuz he ain't got no money. Gotta get your stories straight, BT. You can't get onto the uptown and the downtown trains at the same time.
<<And don't you think filing suit would bring life to the lie? Why is it a bad idea for McCain not to sue but brilliant strategy for Obama not to.>>
That's easy - - McCain could sue and collect if the story were false. If Schectman lied for gain, the gain is uncertain (since it could all be whisked away in a successful lawsuit) and at the same time, his reputation is irreparably trashed. He's lied for nothing. So the idea of Schectman making up a big lie for money is inherently improbable. Furthermore, there are witnesses who could be subpoena'd in a lawsuit. McCain knows what they'll say. THEY have no motive to lie. Schectman is a real sitting duck if he's lying - - all McCain has to do is haul him into court, challenge him to name his sources and if Schectman clams up, game over. If he names the eyewitnesses, game over. Still McCain won't move. It's a no-brainer. He won't shoot a sitting duck because he knows (a) it happened (b) there are witnesses and (c) they'll back Schecter. So he lets it go.
Obama OTOH could never recover against the yoyo in the video because he obviously has no assets. Also according to the yoyo's story there were no witnesses. What if Obama can't prove it's a lie? Loses the case, which looks a lot worse. The Republican spin wouldn't be that Obama lost but that the guy WON.
<<Mikey your responses are getting weaker and weaker by the day. >>
On the contrary, BT, it's your inability to follow logic to its inevitable conclusion that is growing weaker by the day. Sorry 'bout that.
-
That's easy - - McCain could sue and collect if the story were false. If Schectman lied for gain, the gain is uncertain (since it could all be whisked away in a successful lawsuit) and at the same time, his reputation is irreparably trashed. He's lied for nothing. So the idea of Schectman making up a big lie for money is inherently improbable. Furthermore, there are witnesses who could be subpoena'd in a lawsuit. McCain knows what they'll say. THEY have no motive to lie. Schectman is a real sitting duck if he's lying - - all McCain has to do is haul him into court, challenge him to name his sources and if Schectman clams up, game over. If he names the eyewitnesses, game over. Still McCain won't move. It's a no-brainer. He won't shoot a sitting duck because he knows (a) it happened (b) there are witnesses and (c) they'll back Schecter. So he lets it go.
I doubt a reporter would be required to reveal his sources in a civil case. !st amendment. McCain is a public figure. He's fair game.
Also according to the yoyo's story there were no witnesses.
Perhaps you should watch the video again. the guy said he met Obama at a fancy bar. All he has to do is have a witness put Obama and this guy in the same place at the same time. BTW the video was added to You tube March 04, 2008. Easily could have been a Hillary supporter.
-
<<I doubt a reporter would be required to reveal his sources in a civil case. !st amendment. McCain is a public figure. He's fair game.>>
Geeze, now Schecter's a journalist again. You change colours faster than a chameleon. When I talked about Schecter putting his journalistic reputation at risk, your response was that he wasn't a journalist, but a political operative. Now he's a journalist again. Better make up your mind once and for all, my head is spinning trying to keep up with your flip-flops.
As I understand privilege and confidentialty, in Canada at least, they are confined to the recognized and traditional roles of solicitor-client and doctor-patient. Maybe (I'm not sure about this) when a guy makes a confession to a priest, but I don't believe this is recognized in English or Canadian law. Journalists definitely have no privilege. They must reveal sources. I'd bet it's the same in the U.S. Judith Miller went to jail didn't she?
<<Perhaps you should watch the video again. the guy said he met Obama at a fancy bar. All he has to do is have a witness put Obama and this guy in the same place at the same time.>>
Ludicrous - - lotsa people meet in fancy bars. They don't all wind up blowing each other in limos. Simple fact is, Obama's accuser has no witnesses, Schecter has two.
<< BTW the video was added to You tube March 04, 2008. Easily could have been a Hillary supporter.>>
Nah. Not Hillary's style. Not her supporters' style either. This one has GOP written all over it.
-
Judith Miller went to jail didn't she?
She went to jail for contempt. You noticed Novak didn't go to jail.
If someone saw Obama and this guy chatting at the bar what followed has added possibility.
BTW at about the same time there was supposedly a tape of Michelle on an anti-white rant. All this at te time the wheels were falling off Hillary's wagon.
Bloggers have been recognized by the courts as having journalistic privileges. Remember the Apple case? Apple sued because a blogger leaked info about an upcoming IPod release. Apple was plumbing what they thought was an internal leak. The judge sided with the blogger. I would think that protection would apply to guest bloggers. It didn't involve national security and neither did the McCain slur.
-
<<She went to jail for contempt. You noticed Novak didn't go to jail.>>
What the hell do you think it means when a journalist goes to jail for contempt? You think she mooned the judge in open court? The contempt was the refusal to comply with a judge's order, probably to name a source or produce information that would cause a source to be revealed. My understanding is that Novak didn't go to jail because he named his source - - I think the source ultimately consented to being named.
<<If someone saw Obama and this guy chatting at the bar what followed has added possibility.>>
"Added posibility" isn't what wins lawsuits. Proof on a balance of probabilities wins lawsuits. And seeing two guys chatting at a bar does NOT prove on a balance of probabilities that they wound up sucking each other off in a limo. Far, far from it. Schecter has two guys who say they heard the c-word and all the rest of it.
<<BTW at about the same time there was supposedly a tape of Michelle on an anti-white rant. All this at te time the wheels were falling off Hillary's wagon.>>
Since every contest starts with many contestants and finishes with one sole survivor, I think we can take it that a lot of wheels fell off a lot of wagons. If wheels falling off wagons is a sure-fire indicator of scurrilous attack video production, your country would by now be so awash in them that they'd be showing up between the Saturday morning cartoons. Getting a little desperate, are we?
<<Bloggers have been recognized by the courts as having journalistic privileges. Remember the Apple case? Apple sued because a blogger leaked info about an upcoming IPod release. Apple was plumbing what they thought was an internal leak. The judge sided with the blogger. I would think that protection would apply to guest bloggers. It didn't involve national security and neither did the McCain slur.>>
Of course the report of McCain's atrocious verbal abuse of his wife involved national security - - by McCain's own admission, he's the only candidate who's qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. If negative campaigning based on lies costs him the election, then America is deprived of its only qualified C-in-C, all due to Schecter's baseless lies. The whole country could be devastated as a result, as it would have been if "President" Bush had not attacked Iraq in the nick of time.
-
Schecter has two guys who say they heard the c-word and all the rest of it.
Yeah the ones who insisted on remaining anomynous.
How convenient. And the ones he did name at the meeting did not corroborate it.
"Added posibility" isn't what wins lawsuits. Proof on a balance of probabilities wins lawsuits.
Are we now advocating that Obama file suit. Obama has admitted to using coke. Why is it unbelievable that he relapses occasionally.
I don't see why you insists that it could only be the GOP behind this, the guy could be nuts or some other politician with something to gain could be behind it.
Was the GOP behind the whole Wright smear? Was the GOP also behind the Edwards affair. Does the GOP have long tentacles into the Enquirer? If memory serves the publisher is a friend of Bill's. So why would this video be beyond their capabilities?
-
<<And the ones he [Schecter] did name at the meeting did not corroborate it.>>
You're just trying to muddy the waters. He did not name the two who obviously heard the remark and told him about it. Being at a meeting does NOT equate to hearing McCain's every insult uttered there.
<<Are we now advocating that Obama file suit. Obama has admitted to using coke. Why is it unbelievable that he relapses occasionally.>>
It's not unbelievable, the point is that the accuser has no resources and there are no witnesses for either side to confirm or deny either the use of coke or the BJ.
<<I don't see why you insists that it could only be the GOP behind this, the guy could be nuts or some other politician with something to gain could be behind it.>>
I never insisted it could only be the GOP, I said it has "GOP" written all over it. As far as I can recall, nobody has ever attacked the courage of a decorated war veteran before in American politics. Guys who served, who put their lives on the line, are regarded (at least by those who support the cause they bled for) as sacrosanct. The Swift Boat attacks, IMHO, set a new low in American poltiical life. Basically what they proved was that the GOP would stoop to anything in order to win an "election." To add insult to injury, a courageous soldier was being smeared on behalf of a bunch of draft-dodging, combat-avoiding crooks.
Here you have another example of the same thing - - no average person would ever think of smearing a decent, respectable, married father of small children, of getting sucked off in a limo by some low-life, and especially not on behalf of some lying, philandering, cheating, adulterous weasel like John Insane.
Here's the essence of the GOP techique: you have an opponent whose virtues are exactly those that appeal most to your own base: martial valor in Kerry's case, solid family and marriage in Obama's. Youi have a leader who embodies the exact opposite of those very virtues. How do you nullify this advantage? The traditional ways are to play down the importance of the virtues, or to make excuses for your man's lack thereof. HOWEVER - - and I think you have to admire the GOP for the sheer audacity of the tactic - - there is another way: simply DENY that your opponent ever possessed those virtues in the first place. If the Truth stands in your way, no problem: Deny it. Mr. Martial Valor is a wimp; Mr. Solid Family Man does coke and gets sucked off by guys in limos.
It's that unmistakeable combination of audacity and total moral bankruptcy that allows, in fact even mandates, the GOP to pull this kinda shit. AFter all, how else can a party that represents only the interests of the very wealthiest people in the country, ever hope to come even close to 50% of the votes in any American "election?"
So while you are correct in that it is also possible that the video could have come from "independent" wackos, the fact remains that it's a trademark GOP operation, it was posted here in this group by a McCain supporter, and all signs point to a "dirty tricks" GOP origin.
-
So while you are correct in that it is also possible that the video could have come from "independent" wackos, the fact remains that it's a trademark GOP operation, it was posted here in this group by a McCain supporter, and all signs point to a "dirty tricks" GOP origin.
/me suggests Mikey look up "false flag".
-
Thanks, Ami, I'll add "false flag" to my list of "other" possibilities. And still say that this one is a trademark GOP operation. Particularly as the Democrats haven't run any "false flag" videos to my knowledge any time in this campaign or the two before it.
-
Thanks, Ami, I'll add "false flag" to my list of "other" possibilities. And still say that this one is a trademark GOP operation. Particularly as the Democrats haven't run any "false flag" videos to my knowledge any time in this campaign or the two before it.
How would you know?
-
Never been caught, anyway.
False flags are an old Republican trick, BTW. Nixon used them extensively in his campaign against Helen Gahagan Douglas in California, getting a bunch of ragged-looking, bearded, scruffy and foreign-accented people to announce their "support" for Douglas in conjunction with his above-ground campaign that she was a communist plant.
If anyone is false-flagging it'll be the Republicans. They pioneered the whole thing.
-
If anyone is false-flagging it'll be the Republicans. They pioneered the whole thing.
Sun Tzu was a Republican? Cool.
Every military thinker and spy master in the world was a Republican? Even cooler.
False flag operations go way back. Even Sun Tzu didn't "invent" them, he documented a useful strategy.
I'm pretty sure the "whisper campaign" about McCain's adopted daughter, the whole Ruby Ridge fiasco, and the current "Obama sniper" stuff are all Democratic false flag operations.
-
<<Sun Tzu was a Republican? Cool.
<<Every military thinker and spy master in the world was a Republican? Even cooler.
<<False flag operations go way back. Even Sun Tzu didn't "invent" them, he documented a useful strategy.>>
No shit, Sherlock. It was the Republicans who pioneered this thing in post-war U.S. politics. Nixon showed the way.
<<I'm pretty sure the "whisper campaign" about McCain's adopted daughter. . . are all Democratic false flag operations.>>
Of course not, they're probably Bush's and Rove's.
I don't usually associate the Ruby Ridge incident as a false flag operation and the guys who want to shoot Obama were Nazis and/or white supremacists last I heard. Nobody accused them of being Republicans so far, although of course you never know. They sure as hell didn't look like Hillary supporters.
-
the guys who want to shoot Obama were Nazis and/or white supremacists last I heard. Nobody accused them of being Republicans so far, although of course you never know. They sure as hell didn't look like Hillary supporters.
Well, duh. If they were gay Democrats from San Francisco, it wouldn't be much of a "false flag" operation, would it?
The whole point would be to convince people that nobody would think were working for the Democrats to do it. Hell, even the people involved wouldn't necessarily know that they were doing the bidding of the Democrats.
-
Meantime you don't have a shred of evidence that this is a false flag operation. But let the wild speculation continue. I think I see where it's leading. Every Republican fuck-up that COULD be a false-flag operation IS a false flag operation. No obviously Democratic fuck-up could EVER be a Republican false-flag operation. Brilliant.
-
Meantime you don't have a shred of evidence that this is a false flag operation.
Well, if it's a well-run false flag operation, there would BE no evidence.
-
Well, if it's a well-run false flag operation, there would BE no evidence.
Let me clarify a bit; perhaps you don't understand what a "false flag operation" is.
The whole point of a false flag operation is to inflict damage of some sort on an opponent, and have all the evidence point to someone else - preferably another opponent, but an innocent bystander will work as well. So, if Hillary (or some other high ranking Democrat) wanted to take out Obama (I mean politically, not necessarily literally) the best way is to use a false flag op and have all the evidence point to the Republicans.
The closest to "evidence" in this case is the fact that the video was made in April - this was about the time that Hillary was suffereing in the polls. However, at that time, the GOP was still targeting BOTH candidates.
-
<<I doubt a reporter would be required to reveal his sources in a civil case. !st amendment. McCain is a public figure. He's fair game.>>
Geeze, now Schecter's a journalist again. You change colours faster than a chameleon. When I talked about Schecter putting his journalistic reputation at risk, your response was that he wasn't a journalist, but a political operative. Now he's a journalist again. Better make up your mind once and for all, my head is spinning trying to keep up with your flip-flops.
As I understand privilege and confidentialty, in Canada at least, they are confined to the recognized and traditional roles of solicitor-client and doctor-patient. Maybe (I'm not sure about this) when a guy makes a confession to a priest, but I don't believe this is recognized in English or Canadian law. Journalists definitely have no privilege. They must reveal sources. I'd bet it's the same in the U.S. Judith Miller went to jail didn't she?
<<Perhaps you should watch the video again. the guy said he met Obama at a fancy bar. All he has to do is have a witness put Obama and this guy in the same place at the same time.>>
Ludicrous - - lotsa people meet in fancy bars. They don't all wind up blowing each other in limos. Simple fact is, Obama's accuser has no witnesses, Schecter has two.
<< BTW the video was added to You tube March 04, 2008. Easily could have been a Hillary supporter.>>
Nah. Not Hillary's style. Not her supporters' style either. This one has GOP written all over it.
Check the details of "travelgate" ,nasty is Hillarys style in spades.
-
<<Check the details of "travelgate" ,nasty is Hillarys style in spades.>>
"Nasty" isn't the point, audacity is. Before Swift-Boating, nobody in either party would have dared to attack the military record of a decorated combat veteran and claim his medals were undeserved. That had never happened before. It was doubly audacious, since the attacks were committed on behalf of yellow-bellies who never had the guts to serve and pulled off every subterfuge in the book to avoid service. They went for the jugular, got him where he lived.
Same thing with this Obama BJ and coke video. Obama's clearly a family guy, which is one of his major advantages against McCain, who desperately needs the religious right, but happens to be a lying, philandering, double-crossing weasel of the first order. Betrayed wife and marriage vows. How to get around THAT? Head-on attack on the very virtue that is Obama's strong point, that Michelle showcased at the convention, knowing it was their strongest suit. That audacity (not the "nastiness") is the Republican trademark.
-
Boy, it must be nice to be so omnipotent, and know precisely what everyone else's underlying motivations and tactical abilities are ::)
-
<<Boy, it must be nice to be so omnipotent, and know precisely what everyone else's underlying motivations and tactical abilities are >>
Omniscient. The word you want is omniscient. Sure it's nice. But YOU'LL never know.
-
Nope, Omnipotent was the word, being all God-like in knowing everything in everyone. What a power that must be
-
<<Check the details of "travelgate" ,nasty is Hillarys style in spades.>>
"Nasty" isn't the point, audacity is. Before Swift-Boating, nobody in either party would have dared to attack the military record of a decorated combat veteran and claim his medals were undeserved. That had never happened before. It was doubly audacious, since the attacks were committed on behalf of yellow-bellies who never had the guts to serve and pulled off every subterfuge in the book to avoid service. They went for the jugular, got him where he lived.
Same thing with this Obama BJ and coke video. Obama's clearly a family guy, which is one of his major advantages against McCain, who desperately needs the religious right, but happens to be a lying, philandering, double-crossing weasel of the first order. Betrayed wife and marriage vows. How to get around THAT? Head-on attack on the very virtue that is Obama's strong point, that Michelle showcased at the convention, knowing it was their strongest suit. That audacity (not the "nastiness") is the Republican trademark.
audacity?
The notion sprang from the people who actually knew John Kerry in Viet Nam , why would they need audacity to speak their mind?
The Audacious one was Kerry who saluted and said "reporting for duty" as he accepted the nomination , as if his service record were his strong suit that is audacity.
Now as to accusations against BHO , none of them should be taken as true without evidence , real evidence.
It is tiresome to me that almost anything can be beleived if it agrees with preconceived notions , therre really are plenty of sceptics in the public , I don't think the accusations against BHO will be widely beleived untill there is more to them than just what a coupple of guys say.
Remember the Anita accusations against Thomas? Was that her own audacity or was she part of a plot?
Doesn't matter apparently , the people who were sceptical feel vindicated by examineing her history, and the people inclined to beleive her need no proof.
-
LOL, OK, sirs, you win. Omnipotent means all-knowing. Omniscient means, well, something else. I forgot who I was talking to. Hello means goodbye. Hello sirs, have a good night. ER, um, I mean a bad day.
-
According to the dictionary vs according to sirs. Apparently you're still using the one from your alternate reality. I'm using the one on this globe, that references omnipotent as almighty or infinite in power, as God.
-
According to the dictionary vs according to sirs. Apparently you're still using the one from your alternate reality. I'm using the one on this globe, that references omnipotent as almighty or infinite in power, as God.
A distinction not a diffrence.
Ommnipotent means being able to do anything, omnicent means able to know everything, omnipresent means being able to be everywhere.
Seems as if this is a set, being able to do everything would include being able to find out anythhing , or be anywhere.
-
<<The notion sprang from the people who actually knew John Kerry in Viet Nam , why would they need audacity to speak their mind?>>
Obviously because it was one big fucking lie. They are saying the Navy four times awarded medals to the guy that on each of four separate occasions were undeserved. Also, "knowing" Kerry does not equate to being on his boat when the medals were won - - they weren't. And his crew backed him up. They were audacious lies.
<<The Audacious one was Kerry who saluted and said "reporting for duty" as he accepted the nomination , as if his service record were his strong suit that is audacity.>>
No it's not audacious at all. He's a military man who risked his life in the service of his country, very much unlike Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowicz and Perle and basically the whole Bush administration. Nothing audacious in making that distinction, although IMHO a trifle tacky. Certainly not audacious. Not even close.
<<Now as to accusations against BHO , none of them should be taken as true without evidence , real evidence.>>
That wasn't the point, OF COURSE they are bullshit. The entire point of this discussion up to now was, WHOSE bullshit?
<<Remember the Anita accusations against Thomas? Was that her own audacity or was she part of a plot?>>
Neither. She was telling the truth.
<< . . . the people who were sceptical feel vindicated by examineing her history>>
There's absolutely nothing in her history that would make her out to be a liar in this matter.
<< . . . and the people inclined to beleive her need no proof.>>
But that's always the case. When it's A's word against B, and there is no other evidence available, the only thing you CAN base your opinion on is which witness is the more credible. It's not a question of "needing" more proof - - there IS no more proof. You might equally say that the people who are inclined to believe Thomas need no more proof. The partisans of each side believe only in the witness, you could say of each side that it "needs no proof." Your comment that the partisans of Anita Hill "need no proof" (implying that they are less rational than the partisans of Clarence Thomas) indicates only your own bias and irrationality.
-
According to the dictionary vs according to sirs. Apparently you're still using the one from your alternate reality. I'm using the one on this globe, that references omnipotent as almighty or infinite in power, as God.
A distinction not a diffrence. Ommnipotent means being able to do anything, omnicent means able to know everything, omnipresent means being able to be everywhere. Seems as if this is a set, being able to do everything would include being able to find out anythhing , or be anywhere.
Well again, Plane, the notion was being God-like, which Tee appears to demonstrate consistently in order to rationalize his raging racist hypocrisy. But I do appreciate your effort
-
<<The notion sprang from the people who actually knew John Kerry in Viet Nam , why would they need audacity to speak their mind?>>
Obviously because it was one big fucking lie. They are saying the Navy four times awarded medals to the guy that on each of four separate occasions were undeserved. Also, "knowing" Kerry does not equate to being on his boat when the medals were won - - they weren't. And his crew backed him up. They were audacious lies.
<<The Audacious one was Kerry who saluted and said "reporting for duty" as he accepted the nomination , as if his service record were his strong suit that is audacity.>>
No it's not audacious at all. He's a military man who risked his life in the service of his country, very much unlike Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowicz and Perle and basically the whole Bush administration. Nothing audacious in making that distinction, although IMHO a trifle tacky. Certainly not audacious. Not even close.
<<Now as to accusations against BHO , none of them should be taken as true without evidence , real evidence.>>
That wasn't the point, OF COURSE they are bullshit. The entire point of this discussion up to now was, WHOSE bullshit?
<<Remember the Anita accusations against Thomas? Was that her own audacity or was she part of a plot?>>
Neither. She was telling the truth.
<< . . . the people who were sceptical feel vindicated by examineing her history>>
There's absolutely nothing in her history that would make her out to be a liar in this matter.
<< . . . and the people inclined to beleive her need no proof.>>
But that's always the case. When it's A's word against B, and there is no other evidence available, the only thing you CAN base your opinion on is which witness is the more credible. It's not a question of "needing" more proof - - there IS no more proof. You might equally say that the people who are inclined to believe Thomas need no more proof. The partisans of each side believe only in the witness, you could say of each side that it "needs no proof." Your comment that the partisans of Anita Hill "need no proof" (implying that they are less rational than the partisans of Clarence Thomas) indicates only your own bias and irrationality.
Scepticism is healthy , but not so much when it is too selective.
Anita Hill's credibility evaporated when it was discovered that when she had followed Thomas as his subordinate when he changed offices and she could have lost his harrassment by just doing nothing. That he would have harrassed her and only her in all of his life and that she would stick to him when she didn't have to in spite of his harrassment seemed unreasonable to beleive.
The irony of these same Senators ,that introduced us to Anita Hill ,defending Bill Clinton a few years later is strong.
I am sceptical of these weird accusations of BHO for much the same reason , it is out of caricter for him as far as I know. If he actually has such bad habits the accusations will be corroberated , perhaps with a better quality of evidence. Very bad habits are seldom seen in a single occurance.
-
<<The notion sprang from the people who actually knew John Kerry in Viet Nam , why would they need audacity to speak their mind?>>
Obviously because it was one big fucking lie. They are saying the Navy four times awarded medals to the guy that on each of four separate occasions were undeserved. Also, "knowing" Kerry does not equate to being on his boat when the medals were won - - they weren't. And his crew backed him up. They were audacious lies.
I wonder about the fourth one .
Do we know that much about his three wounds?
-
<<Anita Hill's credibility evaporated when it was discovered that when she had followed Thomas as his subordinate when he changed offices and she could have lost his harrassment by just doing nothing. That he would have harrassed her and only her in all of his life and that she would stick to him when she didn't have to in spite of his harrassment seemed unreasonable to beleive.>>
You clearly do not understand the mechanics of the case. Anita Hill was not a complainant against Thomas and did not want to go public with it at any time. The original "harrassment" was mentioned in a private conversation only, but word of it got out and Thomas' political opponents decided for political reasons to make an issue of it. Although Anita Hill did not want to go forward with her evidence, she was subpoena'd and forced to testify. She told the truth. As the attacks on her character multiplied, she took it personally, which was not her original take on it.
Anita Hill may or may not have been mildly annoyed by Thomas' conduct but clearly did not regard it as any big deal at the time, which explains why she stuck with him when he changed offices and also explains why no harrassment complaints were lodged. However the issue at the Congressional hearings was not how Hill felt about it all, but whether or not Thomas had committed the acts that Hill said he had.
-
<<Anita Hill's credibility evaporated when it was discovered that when she had followed Thomas as his subordinate when he changed offices and she could have lost his harrassment by just doing nothing. That he would have harrassed her and only her in all of his life and that she would stick to him when she didn't have to in spite of his harrassment seemed unreasonable to beleive.>>
You clearly do not understand the mechanics of the case. Anita Hill was not a complainant against Thomas and did not want to go public with it at any time. The original "harrassment" was mentioned in a private conversation only, but word of it got out and Thomas' political opponents decided for political reasons to make an issue of it. Although Anita Hill did not want to go forward with her evidence, she was subpoena'd and forced to testify. She told the truth. As the attacks on her character multiplied, she took it personally, which was not her original take on it.
Anita Hill may or may not have been mildly annoyed by Thomas' conduct but clearly did not regard it as any big deal at the time, which explains why she stuck with him when he changed offices and also explains why no harrassment complaints were lodged. However the issue at the Congressional hearings was not how Hill felt about it all, but whether or not Thomas had committed the acts that Hill said he had.
So you do beleive the accusations against BHO , the ones that have a singe person stateing them? Perhaps if it is no big deal to the accuser?
Doesn't your self respect require that your scepticism be unbiased?
-
<<So you do beleive the accusations against BHO , the ones that have a singe person stateing them? >>
No, of course I don't. What ever gave you that idea?
<<Perhaps if it is no big deal to the accuser?>>
Sorry, plane, you are just not making any sense.
<<Doesn't your self respect require that your scepticism be unbiased?>>
plane, I can't even begin to guess where you're coming from on that one.
I could be wrong, but I think that your comments above might be based on a misguided effort on your part to apply my analysis of the Clarence Thomas hearings to my analysis of the video in which some low-life is claiming to have sucked off Obama in a limo. I just saw this quote in a New Yorker article: "A thing is what it is, and not some other thing." Meaning that a lot of mistakes get made when people try to read one situation in terms of another: "Not taking out Saddam is like Chamberlain allowing Hitler to walk all over him at Munich."
False analogies in other words. I don't want to painstakingly analyze my thoughts on Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas and then compare them with my thoughts on the Obama limo BJ video because it's just too much damned work for very little result, but in nutshell, your reasoning was very faulty. Your conclusions were way off. I don't know exactly what you missed, but believe me, you must have missed plenty.
-
<<So you do beleive the accusations against BHO , the ones that have a singe person stateing them? >>
No, of course I don't. What ever gave you that idea?
That you were a pushover for Anita Hill
<<Perhaps if it is no big deal to the accuser?>>
Sorry, plane, you are just not making any sense.
I didn't think this made sense either when you said it.
"Anita Hill was not a complainant against Thomas and did not want to go public with it at any time. "
As you say it is weak on the sense .
<<Doesn't your self respect require that your scepticism be unbiased?>>
plane, I can't even begin to guess where you're coming from on that one.
Do you have a self image of being fair mined? If you do not what do you substitute for fairness in terms of self respect?
I could be wrong, but I think that your comments above might be based on a misguided effort on your part to apply my analysis of the Clarence Thomas hearings to my analysis of the video in which some low-life is claiming to have sucked off Obama in a limo. I just saw this quote in a New Yorker article: "A thing is what it is, and not some other thing." Meaning that a lot of mistakes get made when people try to read one situation in terms of another: "Not taking out Saddam is like Chamberlain allowing Hitler to walk all over him at Munich."
False analogies in other words. I don't want to painstakingly analyze my thoughts on Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas and then compare them with my thoughts on the Obama limo BJ video because it's just too much damned work for very little result, but in nutshell, your reasoning was very faulty. Your conclusions were way off. I don't know exactly what you missed, but believe me, you must have missed plenty.
I guess you see a clear diffrence that I don't.
As far as I can tell BHO is being handed a rediculous accusation that I would only beleive on the strength of my own prejudice if I wanted to.
Clairence Thomas was given an Accusation of political utility that your prejudices help you beleive.
I know it is hard to deal with ones own prejudices , but it is worth attempting.
A close examination of the two things is not needed , they are simular in kind , not in detail.
They are simular in use , perhaps not in truth , perhaps truth is beside the point , but there isn't the apperance of honesty in either of these accusers.
Nor does the accuser need to appear honest , or truth be present if the acceptance of the accusation fits a favoriate prejudice well.
-
As far as I can tell BHO is being handed a rediculous accusation that I would only beleive on the strength of my own prejudice if I wanted to. Clairence Thomas was given an Accusation of political utility that your prejudices help you beleive. I know it is hard to deal with ones own prejudices , but it is worth attempting.....Nor does the accuser need to appear honest , or truth be present if the acceptance of the accusation fits a favoriate prejudice well.
*golf clap*......well assessed, Plane. Helps explain so much.....the supposed rabid racism in the South, Bush stealing the election, Military is just a bunch of low hanging torture loving rapist fruit, Bush lying us into war, it's all about the oil, yada, blah, etc.
-
<<Nor does the accuser need to appear honest , or truth be present if the acceptance of the accusation fits a favoriate prejudice well.>>
Well, the flaw - - or I guess in this case, the flaws - - in your reasoning are becoming a little clearer now.
First of all, I don't have a favourite prejudice. In answer to your earlier question, I consider myself very fair-minded, but I can appreciate how my fair-minded judgments can appear prejudiced or biased to people like yourself and sirs, who are yourselves the poster boys for thinking blinded by prejudice, ultranationalism, racism and chauvinism. You can't be wrong, so any judgment someone else (myself, for instance) HAS to be wrong.
Secondly, even if I DID have a prejudice, the prejudice would not invalidate a conclusion valid on other grounds. A white racist for example could tell you why he thinks OJ killed Nicole. IMHO, his reasoning would probably be valid. The fact that he is a racist does not mean that OJ is innocent.
In the Clarence Thomas case, I considered the fact that Anita Hill's story came out in a private conversation and she did not wish to make a big deal of it, did not, for example, lodge a complaint at the time and did not want to go public with it during the confirmation hearings. The Obama-BJ-coke story was offered gratuitously for public consumption.
I also was unfavourably impressed that Thomas did not answer all questions put to him at his hearing but was very selective as to what he would or would not answer - - questions of his pornography rentals, for example, met with a stone wall of refusals to answer. The questions were important since some very important pornography cases were headed toward the Supreme Court at the time and whether Thomas, as an avid fan of the stuff, might have to recuse himself from hearing them was a legitimate Senate concern.
And finally, the hearings being televised, I was able to form my own opinion of the two conflicting witnesses - - in contrast to Thomas' stonewalling, I was favourably impressed by the demeanour of Anita Hill, the straightforward way she gave her evidence. She did not appear to me to be lying.