Obama is anti-semite

[Charles RB]

Didn´t Kerry lose to Bush because of that reasoning?

As far as I know there's no statistical evidence suggesting that.

You could argue Green votes in Florida cost Gore, but that assumes those voters would have voted for Gore anyway & assumes they should have when the prevailing attitude as I remember was "who cares, both the candidates are pretty much the same".

(And if you believe Bush stole the election, the Green votes had no impact at all!)

[mattx110]

As far as I know there's no statistical evidence suggesting that.

You could argue Green votes in Florida cost Gore, but that assumes those voters would have voted for Gore anyway & assumes they should have when the prevailing attitude as I remember was "who cares, both the candidates are pretty much the same".

(And if you believe Bush stole the election, the Green votes had no impact at all!)
Didn't Buchanan take more votes from Gore in Florida anyway?

[Buzz Dixon]

Samurai,

I've decided that until you do the decent thing and at the very least respond to me, I'm putting you on ignore.

Your using my people to fearmonger offends the ever living hell out of me. You've never been a victim of it. You don't know what it means.Nut if you have him on ignore, then you'll never know if he -- ohhhhh, right...

[Gilda Dent]

Didn't Buchanan take more votes from Gore in Florida anyway?

Yes, but this was because of elderly voters accidentally voting for Buchanan rather than Gore when using a butterfly ballot.

Candidates were listed alphabetically, with Bush first on the left side of the ballot, Buchanan second on the right, and Gore third on the left. Voters seeing Gore's name immediately under Bush's on the left side of the ballot punched the second slot on their ballot, thinking they were voting for Gore with the vote actually going to Buchanan.

Buchanan may have gotten as many as 20,000 votes intended for Gore as a result, but it wasn't Buchanan luring away potential Gore voters so much as a procedural error.

[mattx110]

Yes, but this was because of elderly voters accidentally voting for Buchanan rather than Gore when using a butterfly ballot.

Candidates were listed alphabetically, with Bush first on the left side of the ballot, Buchanan second on the right, and Gore third on the left. Voters seeing Gore's name immediately under Bush's on the left side of the ballot punched the second slot on their ballot, thinking they were voting for Gore with the vote actually going to Buchanan.

Buchanan may have gotten as many as 20,000 votes intended for Gore as a result, but it wasn't Buchanan luring away potential Gore voters so much as a procedural error. I know. Thanks for posting the summary though. The point is, the people who went "who cares? I'm voting Nader" didn't screw Gore.

And Bus, Buc, Gor alphabetically? What?

[Buzz Dixon]

It seems odd to me that they've built up Palin's experience by making cracks about community organizers.You mean like this guy?
http://punditkitchen.com/2008/10/14/political-pictures-martin-luther-king-community-organizer/




(...and if the pic doesn't come thru... http://punditkitchen.com/2008/10/14/political-pictures-martin-luther-king-community-organizer/ )

[Buzz Dixon]

Naw... much better to have a guy who, when stationed at MCCAIN field (named after his grandfather), when told by the flight tower that he would have to fly a holding pattern until his turn came to land, told the flight tower, "Either you let me land RIGHT NOW or I'm gonna take My Field and go home!"Oh, c'mon now! That was obviously said as a joke.

[Gilda Dent]

I know. Thanks for posting the summary though. The point is, the people who went "who cares? I'm voting Nader" didn't screw Gore.

And Bus, Buc, Gor alphabetically? What?

There was more than one problem with those ballots.

[Buzz Dixon]

2. If by some miracle McCain and Palin win, they can't possibly be as corrupt and malevolently evil as Bush/Cheny have been, so no matter what happens it's an improvement
I think that's one area where Palin is definitely a fast learner.

[Buzz Dixon]

No, Kerry lost to Bush because of:

1) Fear of changing President's mid-conflict.
2) A lack of any real campaign strategy beyond "I'm not the incumbent".3) Kerry never atoned for angering veterans and their families back during the Vietnam war and they were delighted to dish out some payback.

[mattx110]

Oh, c'mon now! That was obviously said as a joke.
A pretty funny joke.

[Buzz Dixon]

Yes, but this was because of elderly voters accidentally voting for Buchanan rather than Gore when using a butterfly ballot. There was also one town where tens of thousands of ballots were ruined because the people were told to punch one chad in every category and, not realizing there were two columns of candidates for president, double punched the presidential vote and disqualified themselves.

And the irony is that the Democrats have controlled the school board in that town for 25 years...

[Solaris]

However, *Gore* lost to Bush, IMO, for that reasoning... well, along with some screwups with vote counting, etc.

I *hate* the stranglehold the two main parties have on our system. I think it's led to rampant corruption in both parties. The problem is, we also have a lot of stupid voters out there who will, like Sam and Bri, base their votes on lies and innuendo, on rampant fear, rather than on actually doing a little homework and trying to approach their vote by looking at what the people have actually done, and what they actually say they'll do in office. Worse still, we have an awful lot of people who will bitch and complain about our president, our congress, our economy and policies etc... but who won't get out of their easy chairs to register and vote.

The Republican Platform for the past three presidential elections has run on fanning the flames of fear: whether the topic was "corruption of family/Christian values because of societal endorsement of Gays, Wicca, etc." or "terrorist threat" or what have you. I love how Sam used to argue that the balanced budget that occured at the beginning of Bush's first term was because of his actions---when the man hadn't been in office long enough to achieve it---yet it simply *couldn't* be a combination of the Clinton Administration and a Republican dominated Congress having to work against each other, in Sam's eyes.

By now, very few disagree that Bush's policies, the rampant pork and tax refunds etc. plus the Republican-fueled de-regulation in the financial sector, have caused our current crisis. Bush's approval rating is at an all-time low, and IIRC about the lowest any president has ever had, in polling history.

At this point, the Dems have finally figured out that all they have to do is appear reasonable, sane, and halfway sensible, and stand back and let the Republicans continue throwing oil on their sinking ship, to win.

In general, I don't trust the career Dems any more (well, maybe marginally) than I do the career Repubs... for me, it's not about party lines in this presidential election: it's about the people who are running.

For those interested, here's a website that shows all the candidates for President:

http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm

I freely admit I don't know much about the candidates for the smaller parties, with three exceptions:

1. I don't like Nader; what I know of him tells me he's not a good candidate.

2. Cynthia McKinney is a nutcase; how the hell she got the Green Party nomination I will never understand.

3. I can't stand Bob Barr (Libertarian candidate), and take exception to many of the stands he's taken over the years (I'm in Georgia, and we've had to put up with him for a while).

*Part* of the reason I don't like Nader is that Gore's platform was decently acceptable (in terms of being fairly close to Nader's), but Bush's platform was a lot farther afield than Nader's own---yet Nader publically stated that he was going to try to pull as many votes away from Gore as he could, even though the polls showed Nader didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Basically, instead of admitting that he didn't have a chance, and throwing his support behind the candidate closest to his own stated ideals and agenda, he helped ensure we got Bush.

Thanks a lot, Ralph.

And yeah, I was fighting against Bush getting elected *before* his first term, right here on these forums (not on YABS, IIRC I was mainly posting on the Comm forum back then). I looked at his gubenatorial record in Texas, and various statements he'd made in his campaign... and going by that, could see that he had absolutely zero respect for other religions and for separation of church and state, for gays, for our foreign policy, for our environment. It's sad that he not only fulfilled all those expections of bad action, but took it even further with ignoring checks and balances on the presidency, with creating laws that abrogated individual rights, took us into Iraq via a lying propeganda campaign fueled by 9/11 fears, and also ignored various warnings about Katrina (along with appointing a grossly-unfit crony to run FEMA before that), AND the man, his administration, and his Republican Congress have managed to run this nation's budget into a hole so deep we could poke our heads out and say 'hi' to the Chinese.

I think most people realize now that Bush is a bible-thumping sock-puppet for Cheney, and Cheney is a sock puppet for major corporate interests who wanted free rein, and to treat our government as merely a tool to let them enact policies designed to increase their cashflow and power. And look where it got us.

And yeah, I've got a bit of a chip on my shoulder about that---because way back when Bush was still just a governor of Texas running for President, and I was trying to point out all the things I'd found that made him, IMO, a dangerous choice... most of the people who I talked with about it on CBR (Comm Forum) said I was "over-exaggerating, that Bush has a lot of good qualities, that I was making mountains out of molehills." It was only when Katrina struck that those people, most of 'em, started to look at the Bush roses with a jaundiced eye... and what irritated me then was the general attitude of "Wow, how could we have known he'd be such an idiot in office..." when I'd been saying it all along. Made me sympathize with Cassandra, it did. I did a lot of headdesking at that point. Only a few, like Sam, continued to staunchly and blindly support Bush after that... and I would guess at this point that even Sam has probably deserted the Bush ship, in favor of his "New Hope."

The only value in looking at what a candidate says is in three things:

1. Do the things he says betray personal opinions of prejudice (not just racial, but any, including religious, or gender, or orientation, etc.); do they betray a vast ignorance; do they betray a hair-trigger temperment or an indecisiveness that would be a real problem in a president?

2. Does he actually have a decently-researched and planned approach to problems in this country the president could be expected to change/fix/alter/begin to fix?

3. How well, or poorly, do his words match his actions and what he's actually done?

All the rest is banners and political rah-rah-ing.

And the same goes for your congressmen, your state representatives and governors, your local representatives and government and judges (when the latter are elected officials).

In the case of Bush, I did NOT like the answers I got to questions 1 and 2... far more than the answers I got on Gore. For his second term, it came down to nearly anything would be better than four more years of Bush, though I loathed Kerry far more than I'd disliked Gore.

For this go-round, it's like McCain is Bush on steroids... and if we vote him in, Gods Help Us... because when your house is on fire, it's not a good idea to try to put it out with gasoline.

[beetlebum]

There was more than one problem with those ballots.

There was also one town where tens of thousands of ballots were ruined because the people were told to punch one chad in every category and, not realizing there were two columns of candidates for president, double punched the presidential vote and disqualified themselves.

And the irony is that the Democrats have controlled the school board in that town for 25 years...

......And this is why I will never stop making fun of the State of Florida.

[Puma]

Nice. Ignore the larger post for the snippet.

And got a source? Puma supplied one.

One of the first things taught when being trained as a historian during my undergraduate and grad student days was to always provide sources.

[Buzz Dixon]

2. Cynthia McKinney is a nutcase; how the hell she got the Green Party nomination I will never understand.The Queen of the Annual Doo-Dah Parade in Pasadena is the first woman or man dressed as a woman who shows up.

[sk716]

Sadly, as far as the Presidential race is concerned, there really are only two parties. The other three can't get a word in edgewise and certainly aren't advertising in Arkansas. I know we're a little short on electoral votes and all, but both Bill and Hillary have been here at separate events within the last two weeks to stump for Obama.

My point is, Joe and Jane America are only vaguely aware that there might be some party other than Democrats and Republicans. I don't see Bob Barr grabbing headlines and guest spots on The Daily Show. Paris Hilton gets more press time than these guys and she hasn't had a sex tape in ages.

In my districts House and Senate races it's two incumbent Democrats being challenged by Green Party candidates. No Republican challengers. The incumbents aren't even really having to work at it because the Green Party challengers can't even seem to muster up the cash for newspaper ads.

Don't get me wrong, in the House and Senate races, I'm voting for the Green Party challengers, but I had to look up who they are and what their positions are on the 'net. I wasn't even aware we had Green Party candidates running until the sample ballot was printed in the newspaper. I know it's odd in these days on instant information, but I just like reading the newspaper.

Until the other parties can come up with the cash to inform middle America of their presence this is a two party system.

[Tetsuo_man]

Sadly, as far as the Presidential race is concerned, there really are only two parties. The other three can't get a word in edgewise and certainly aren't advertising in Arkansas. I know we're a little short on electoral votes and all, but both Bill and Hillary have been here at separate events within the last two weeks to stump for Obama.

My point is, Joe and Jane America are only vaguely aware that there might be some party other than Democrats and Republicans. I don't see Bob Barr grabbing headlines and guest spots on The Daily Show. Paris Hilton gets more press time than these guys and she hasn't had a sex tape in ages.

In my districts House and Senate races it's two incumbent Democrats being challenged by Green Party candidates. No Republican challengers. The incumbents aren't even really having to work at it because the Green Party challengers can't even seem to muster up the cash for newspaper ads.

Don't get me wrong, in the House and Senate races, I'm voting for the Green Party challengers, but I had to look up who they are and what their positions are on the 'net. I wasn't even aware we had Green Party candidates running until the sample ballot was printed in the newspaper. I know it's odd in these days on instant information, but I just like reading the newspaper.

Until the other parties can come up with the cash to inform middle America of their presence this is a two party system.

Well Bob Barr and Ron Paul (post his counter-convention) both have been on the Colbert Report...not sure if that's close enough...

[section 8]

Well Bob Barr and Ron Paul (post his counter-convention) both have been on the Colbert Report...not sure if that's close enough...
Paul actually had a good following for a while, it wasn't nearly enough, but better than i expected.

[section 8]

Does your neighbour have a nice arse ?

It is a work of art, unfortunately it is a spoken for work of art.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Paul actually had a good following for a while, it wasn't nearly enough, but better than i expected.

Paul never ended his campaign....he claimed the REVOLUTION would continue ! The funniest news story I saw on Youtube.com was when a Fox News reporter I believe asked a group of Ron Paul supporters what they were gonna do now that he likely was outta the race.

Well however he put it....the question must have pissed the Ron Paul supporters off massive. Because they chased after him !:tongue:

[Samurai]

1. Voting with Bush and voting with Republicans isn't the same thing.
2. How far back are you going to get that 57%? Or better yet, where are you getting that number?

I don't know why I even bother but:

John McCain has voted with a majority of his Republican colleagues 88.1% of the time during the current Congress. (110th Congress)This percentage does not include votes in which McCain did not vote. John McCain has missed 420 votes (64.1%) during the current Congress. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/

During the 109th Congress Sen. McCain voted with his party 81% of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly." http://mediamatters.org/items/200808130001



How far back are you going Samurai?

I'm talking about his 2006 rating, which was 56.7% conservative. He has gotten far less conservative, more liberal during the Bush administration, speaking out and voting against Bush and the Republicans on a number of issues, from taxes to "torture", amnesty to global warming, campaign finance to judicial nominations. He used to be up around 80%+ conservative, but that started falling in 1995, and since 2002, has averaged well under 60%. He is one of the more liberal Republicans in the Senate, and is considered a solid centrist thanks to his working with the "Gang of 14" and his numerous bi-partisan efforts on many bills.

By the way, these conservative rankings are the best measure of his leanings, because George Bush can't vote in the Senate. So saying "he voted with Bush" is a lie on the face of it. Bush ended up signing into law quite a few things he didn't really like or agree with because he was faaaar too shy about using his veto power, and instead suggested ways to tweak things in signing statements instead. So if McCain voted for 90% of the things Bush simply didn't veto, that in NO WAY means that they agreed on the bill. Plus, there are some issues, such as immigration, that Bush and McCain both sided with the Democrats and were opposed by the Congressional Republicans! Should McCain be faulted for agreeing with the Democrats on these issues, just because Bush also agree with them? And what about non-partisan bills, such as voting to send relief to hurricane victims? Pretty much everyone in Congress and the White House agreed on sending support and approving funding, so should McCain be counted as "agreeing with Bush" on issues like that?

National Journal weeds out those kinds of things and looks at the serious votes on partisan issues, not the stuff everyone agreed on. And when push came to shove, McCain sided with fellow Republicans only 56.7% of the time in 2006 and under 60% on average for most of the Bush administration.


http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/pdf/06republicans.pdf
http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/pdf/08election.pdf
http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/pdf/06centrists.pdf

[Samurai]

That is a lie. He passed the Obama-Luger act which reinforced cooperative threat reduction regarding disused missles and ordinance. The Coburn-Obama act established a website designed to track federal spending for the sake of the public. Even the Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/502njiqx.asp) lauded it. And he introduced the Iraq demobilization act (http://nwitimes.com/articles/2007/02/07/news/illiana/doc65cc98d8dc6506b28625727b0011edb5.txt), which whether or not you agree with it, is definitely a major piece of legislation. I could list more bills he's offered. Additionally he not only served on Subcommittees for Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Homeland Security, Governmental Affairs, Environment, Public Works, and Veterans' Affairs AS WELL AS Foreign Relations, for which he made official trips abroad on behalf of the U.S. And he was Chairman of the Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs.

Meanwhile Palin has shown complete ignorance of foreign policy affairs and cannot even answer basic questions by reporters on her platform or capability to handle the office. She claimed that her position as Governor of Alaska gave her special insight into Russian actions, and when asked only replied "I can see Russia from Alaska." She has campaigned against pork spending while being for it, including the notorious bridge to nowhere. And lacking anything of substance to campaign on she has repeatedly resorted to populist vilification of Obama to cries of "Terrorist!" and "Kill him!" to which she has remained silent.

Obama's bills were worthless... a bill that says "nuclear proliferation is bad, mnkay?" was a no-brainer that everyone agreed on, no challenge there. The website bill hasn't changed anything, pork barrel projects have reached new highs in the Democrat congress, so fat lot of good that "transparency" did. Has anyone even checked the site? Is it up? I haven't seen anyone using or touting it at all, so what kind of a resource is that? And a bill to surrender to Al Queda in Iraq and flee with our tail between our legs... yeah, that would have been meaningful, but I thank goodness it failed.

As for Palin, Alaska is neighbors with Russia, and the Alaskan national guard is always on duty monitoring Russia. http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/08/commanding-the.html And the "Terrorist" and "Kill him" comments were directed at Bill Ayers, not Barack Obama, the MSM has been lying about that one non-stop. http://www.examiner.com/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner~y2008m10d14-Reporters-Kill-him-shout-aimed-at-Ayers-not-Obama

Reporters: 'Kill him!' shout aimed at Ayers, not Obama
October 14, 2:42 PM
by Kathy Shaidle, Conservative Politics Examiner


Even the original reporters on the story are saying that the idiot who yelled "Kill him!" during a Sarah Palin rally was referring to unrepentant domestic terrorist and Barack Obama supporter Bill Ayers -- not to Obama himself.

After all, Palin had literally just mentioned Ayer's name in her speech when the man shouted from the crowd.

Reporters from the Washington Post and the New Republic -- both reliably liberal publications -- say the true target of the despicable outburst was obvious:

I took “kill him” to mean Ayers–not Obama. It’s just a far, far likelier explanation given the context. That’s still an ugly thing to shout–but on the other hand Ayers probably would have gotten the death penalty had his bombs actually taken a life...

But as far as Obama's more enthusiastic supporters are concerned, the truth doesn't matter. They complain that the "campaign is turning ugly," while simultaneously spreading rumors like this one, which purposely evoke America's ugly -- and long gone -- history of lynching. (And while wearing t-shirts that read SARAH PALIN IS A C*NT, calling on Palin to be "stoned to death, old school" and comparing John McCain to segregationist George Wallace, among other things.)

[BnL]

From the horse's mouth. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4DrL8-UA4U&)

[Samurai]

From the horse's mouth. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4DrL8-UA4U&)

That was during the primaries, when he was saying and doing everything he could to appeal to conservative voters and downplay his centrist/RINO image. He was lying, his record shows that, and anyone with a decent memory will recall his numerous disagreements with Bush and Republican policies.

[glue]

I'm talking about his 2006 rating, which was 56.7% conservative. He has gotten far less conservative, more liberal during the Bush administration, speaking out and voting against Bush and the Republicans on a number of issues, from taxes to "torture", amnesty to global warming, campaign finance to judicial nominations. He used to be up around 80%+ conservative, but that started falling in 1995, and since 2002, has averaged well under 60%. He is one of the more liberal Republicans in the Senate, and is considered a solid centrist thanks to his working with the "Gang of 14" and his numerous bi-partisan efforts on many bills.

By the way, these conservative rankings are the best measure of his leanings, because George Bush can't vote in the Senate. So saying "he voted with Bush" is a lie on the face of it. Bush ended up signing into law quite a few things he didn't really like or agree with because he was faaaar too shy about using his veto power, and instead suggested ways to tweak things in signing statements instead. So if McCain voted for 90% of the things Bush simply didn't veto, that in NO WAY means that they agreed on the bill. Plus, there are some issues, such as immigration, that Bush and McCain both sided with the Democrats and were opposed by the Congressional Republicans! Should McCain be faulted for agreeing with the Democrats on these issues, just because Bush also agree with them? And what about non-partisan bills, such as voting to send relief to hurricane victims? Pretty much everyone in Congress and the White House agreed on sending support and approving funding, so should McCain be counted as "agreeing with Bush" on issues like that?

National Journal weeds out those kinds of things and looks at the serious votes on partisan issues, not the stuff everyone agreed on. And when push came to shove, McCain sided with fellow Republicans only 56.7% of the time in 2006 and under 60% on average for most of the Bush administration.


http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/pdf/06republicans.pdf
http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/pdf/08election.pdf
http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/pdf/06centrists.pdf

I don't open PDF files because they make my computer freeze up, but I appreciate you providing them.

[MacQuarrie]

The Queen of the Annual Doo-Dah Parade in Pasadena is the first woman or man dressed as a woman who shows up.

Not anymore. They have a competition now. Palin would lose.

[MacQuarrie]

That was during the primaries, when he was saying and doing everything he could to appeal to conservative voters and downplay his centrist/RINO image. He was lying, his record shows that, and anyone with a decent memory will recall his numerous disagreements with Bush and Republican policies.

Wait a minute... you're endorsing a guy you publicly admit is a liar? A guy with low enough ethics that he would say or do anything to get elected?

Really?

I thought the Republicans stood for character and values....

[Samurai]

Wait a minute... you're endorsing a guy you publicly admit is a liar? A guy with low enough ethics that he would say or do anything to get elected?

Really?

I thought the Republicans stood for character and values....

How many times do I have to say it? I'm not, NOT, NOT a big fan of McCain's policies. I disagree with him a significant amount of the time, and he was pandering like mad during the primaries to try and convince people that he really was a conservative, when he isn't. That's why he sought endorsements from right-wing churches, made claims about siding with Bush, and all the rest. It may have fooled a few people, but I look at actual actions, not words during a campaign. And McCain is a solid centrist in his actions.

Similarly, Obama has been lying through his teeth in his campaigns as well. He's pretending to be a centrist instead of the socialist and radical left-winger that his actions show he is.

So, both campaigns are lying, and in both cases, actions speak louder than words. Looking at their actions, I choose McCain.

[Larime]

Similarly, Obama has been lying through his teeth in his campaigns as well. He's pretending to be a centrist instead of the socialist and radical left-winger that his actions show he is.

Hey, Sam. The Cold War called. It wants its boogeyman back.

[Samurai]

Hey, Sam. The Cold War called. It wants its boogeyman back.

Tell the Cold War it'll have to capture Obama itself, then...

[thehod]

I do think for myself. You may not like my "ideals", but they are mine and mine alone, no one tells me what to think, and that most definitely includes the PC crowd around here. I study a topic, research it, and reach my own conclusions. Sometimes they fall in line with the popular conclusions others have reached, sometimes they are relatively unique to myself, but they are always my own, not what someone said.

Obama's past, his numerous relationships and associations with terrorists and terrorist supporters (both foreign and domestic), a slum lord and influence peddler, an African warlord responsible for the murder of over 1000 people (including burning 35 people alive in a church) and 500,000 fleeing for their lives, a bigoted, racist preacher who claims white people invented AIDS to kill blacks, and a group that tried its best to rig the election with 400,000+ fake voter registrations, now up on charges in 14 states, and also responsible for helping cause the housing crisis. THIS is Obama's circle of close friends and associates, and they have been surrounding him for over 20 years.

Sam, rereading this thread this morning got me to thinking about these two statements of yours.

Now, please tell me if I'm inferring something here that I shouldn't. I don't think I am, because it looks fairly clear to me.

Your first statement is quite right and proper. A person should be judged on his opinions and his actions, and if you say these opinions are yours and haven't been coloured or influenced by outside parties I choose to believe that. You're clearly an educated individual and I trust you are able to form your own opinions and viewpoints on a subject.

However, your second statement seems to judge Mr Obama purely on the company he keeps, and doesn't afford him the same courtesy of being able to form his own opinions and decide his own actions separate from that company. If we are asked not to find a fellow poster guilty be association, should we also be doing the same thing for a presidential candidate? Based on your own statement, we should be judging him on what he has actually said and actually done, rather than what people he knows have actually said and actually done, shouldn't we?

Does this not strike you as hypocritical? Requesting that you be treated differently to a manner in which you'd choose to treat another man?

[Typo Lad]

Hey Hod, I have a buck to say he ignores your substantive argument much as he did mine.

[thehod]

Hey Hod, I have a buck to say he ignores your substantive argument much as he did mine.

Chances are.

Would a quid suffice?

[Typo Lad]

If Paypal'll take it.

Wait, you're betting he will answer, right?

[thehod]

Wait, you're betting he will answer, right?

Nah, I just think that you pointing out he'll ignore any worthwhile arguement that is counter to his mind is worthy of a quid.

A fake internet quid, but a quid nevertheless.

[Charles RB]

As for Palin, Alaska is neighbors with Canada

Fixed it for you.

I'm afraid I can't fix the "Obama is a radical socialist!" claims because that's so broken and beyond reality, the only thing we can do is mercy-kill the claim to put it out of its misery.

[Agent Helix]

I'm always baffled at why you guys engage Samurai and Briareos at all.

[Charles RB]

I'm always baffled at why you guys engage Samurai and Briareos at all.

So am I, and I do it. :frown:

[Typo Lad]

They're black holes of logic, sucking us in.

[Adam C]

Obama's bills were worthless... a bill that says "nuclear proliferation is bad, mnkay?" was a no-brainer that everyone agreed on, no challenge there. The website bill hasn't changed anything, pork barrel projects have reached new highs in the Democrat congress, so fat lot of good that "transparency" did. Has anyone even checked the site? Is it up? I haven't seen anyone using or touting it at all, so what kind of a resource is that? And a bill to surrender to Al Queda in Iraq and flee with our tail between our legs... yeah, that would have been meaningful, but I thank goodness it failed.

Y'know Sam, it's immensely hard to give you credit on even the one thing you did get right - the "kill him" comments being directed at Ayers (I did not realise that) - when you shift the goal posts like this. I give you examples of meaningful legislation and you immediately say "oh those count!" Your comments regarding increase in pork were made without reference to evidence and the fact that you asked if the site was even up makes me believe you never checked the link I posted, which has the URL in the first paragraph.

http://www.usaspending.gov/

Additionally if you bothered researching the Lugar-Obama act (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/02/AR2005120201509.html) it expands on a previous program that exclusively focused on nukes. The act involves expanding non-proliferation to include light-weight anti-aircraft systems and small arms to keep them out of the black market.

As for Palin, Alaska is neighbors with Russia, and the Alaskan national guard is always on duty monitoring Russia. http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/08/commanding-the.html

Your link doesn't work.

Even though hasn't ordered the national guard to do anything (http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080903/pl_mcclatchy/3035478) according to its top commander. He runs the day-to-day affairs of the Alaskan National guard and its disaster response activities.

And if the guard is involved in monitoring Russia why couldn't she answer a simple question like "What insight does being governor of Alaska give you on Russian actions" after claiming she possessed such insight?

[Adam C]

I'm always baffled at why you guys engage Samurai and Briareos at all.

I think it's my own form of masochism personally.

*Cues up the Velvet Underground's "Venus in Furs"*

[Stressfactor]

On the flip side, they ARE an acid test.

When I was in grad school I knew a guy who was what my family called a "Shit-Stir" -- someone who would say and do anything to stir up shit. This guy would take the position opposite of yours DELIBERATELY, even if he didn't believe it, just to get you arguing.

The thing was, he was a brilliant devil's advocate. He really could do a good job defending some of the most indefesible positions. So one time I was working on a major paper and we were discussing it and he got me arguing the point of my paper's thesis -- defending it.

When I actually deflected every single one of his points -- utterly and totally crushed every single thing he threw out there to the point where he just didn't have an argement anymore I KNEW I had a good paper.

I figure if you can actually argue Sam and Bri to the point where they leave the thread rather than admit defeat you've done two things: 1) Proven your arguement beyond a shadow of a doubt and 2) Gotten them off the thread at least for a little while.

It's a win-win situation!

[Adam C]

On the flip side, they ARE an acid test.

[...]

When I actually deflected every single one of his points -- utterly and totally crushed every single thing he threw out there to the point where he just didn't have an argement anymore I KNEW I had a good paper.

I figure if you can actually argue Sam and Bri to the point where they leave the thread rather than admit defeat you've done two things: 1) Proven your arguement beyond a shadow of a doubt...

The problem is that their arguments are such utter shit it's not really a victory. It took very little work to work up my response to Samurai. This is especially the case with Bri who more often than not doesn't respond when his arguments are knocked down. That he persisted in this thread is actually unusual for him.

[Adam C]

Okay I thought of one:

The real reason people argue with Bri and Sam is because they are the great uniters! No matter what our differences principled conservatives, principled liberals, and principled lefties will all get together to counter their vile, stupid lies.

[Agent Helix]

I can't really fault your for creativity, I guess.

[EdContradictory]

We need to break the stranglehold that the Big Two have on American politics. The two-party system is the source of most of our current political problems.


Yeah, I tried that once (voting for a third party candidate) and have regretted it ever since.

[EdContradictory]

I know. Thanks for posting the summary though. The point is, the people who went "who cares? I'm voting Nader" didn't screw Gore.

No, we just unleashed Nader the delusional egomaniac on the American populace.

[Puma]

I'm talking about his 2006 rating, which was 56.7% conservative.

By the way, these conservative rankings are the best measure of his leanings, because George Bush can't vote in the Senate. So saying "he voted with Bush" is a lie on the face of it.




http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/pdf/06republicans.pdf
http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/pdf/08election.pdf
http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/pdf/06centrists.pdf
Why am not surprised that you are changing terms again? Your first post on this matter moved from the original poster's "voted with Bush" (which most of us have the ability to understand that he meant voted in support of Bush's policies/desires), to voted with GOP line, to now voted conservative. You change the goalposts constantly when presented with evidence against your argument.

and let's see, the 109th Congress was from January 3, 2005 to January 3, 2007 and McCain's record shows that he voted with his party 81% of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly. Not the 56.7% you quote from 2006.

Mind you, again you've switched the terms from voting with the GOP to the much more nebulous 'conservative' (a term which you need to define) so personally I think you are cherry picking numbers.


again.

[jessecuster3]

I have a question, in the wake of all of the contrary evidence can't someone change the thread title?

[BnL]

I have a question, in the wake of all of the contrary evidence can't someone change the thread title?

Nah, I kinda like it as is. It's a testament to Briareos' enviable mastery of the English language.

[mattx110]

Nah, I kinda like it as is. It's a testament to Briareos' enviable mastery of the English language.It's grammatically correct for an article title.

[CutterMike]

(...)
and a group that tried its best to rig the election with 400,000+ fake voter registrations, now up on charges in 14 states
(...)
didn't know that his $832,000 to ACORN would be used for voter fraud.
(...)

Just a couple of quick questions, Sam...

400,000 fake registrations, Sam? Really?

You have proof of 400,000 fake registrations?

...As opposed to, say, a fraction of a percent false or erroneous registrations...? (You know... erroneous, like spelling of a name or street differs from one gov't database to another...? Y'know, like human error...?)

...And note, please, the difference between VOTER fraud and voter REGISTRATION fraud.

If someone "registers" eleven spurious "voters" in Las Vegas, NV, under the names of the Dallas Cowboys' starting line-up -- that's REGISTRATION fraud. If eleven 5'3", 120 lb. guys show up claiming to BE the starting line of the Dallas Cowboys and try to vote, THAT's voter fraud. It's only the latter case that can actually, fraudulently affect an election' fraudulent registration means NOTHING unless someone actually shows up at the polls and tries to USE it

And of the fraction of one percent of false "registrations" submitted, how many were submitted TO ACORN and NOT passed on to the Registrars of voters and how many were actually submitted BY ACORN to the Registrars?

And if fraudulently registering nonexistent voters who aren't going to show up counts as voter fraud, does fraudulently DEPRIVING legitimate voters by challenging ALL of ACORN's registrations because of the few false ones not ALSO count as voter fraud?

How many of the charges presented in the 14 states you claim are leveled at the individuals who attempted to defraud the system AND defraud ACORN, and how many are leveled at ACORN management?

Because, if you are going to claim that charges targeting the low-level employees = charges placed on the organization and top management, then you pretty much have to charge George Bush with murder every time a buck private kills a civilian in Iraq.

So those are the questions, Sam:

1 - 400,000 fraudulent registrations? Really?
2 - How many false registrations were submitted TO ACORN, and how many of THOSE were subsequently submitted BY ACORN? Are those numbers the same?
3 - Is it voter fraud to dismiss a whole class of registrations because of a few false or erroneous ones?
4 - How many charges have been filed against the INDIVIDUAL ACORN canvasser an how many against ACORN MANAGEMENT for the alleged fraud?
5 - If management is always responsible for the felonies and misdemeanors of its employees, is George Bush a liar, torturer and murderer?

Hell, I'll make it easy on you: If you can answer questions 1 and 2 and show me actual evidence that ACORN managers submitted 400,000 voter registrations that they knew were fraudulent and are up on charges for it, I'll start a thread titled "SAMURAI WAS RIGHT ABOUT ACORN AND I'M A BIG DOO-DOO HEAD!"

If you can't prove it, you shut up about it.

That seems fair, doesn't it?

[Buzz Dixon]

That was during the primaries, when he was saying and doing everything he could to appeal to conservative voters and downplay his centrist/RINO image. He was lying, his record shows that, and anyone with a decent memory will recall his numerous disagreements with Bush and Republican policies.So let me get this straight: You think it's a good idea to vote for a known liar who lies in order to get what he wants?

[Buzz Dixon]

I'm always baffled at why you guys engage Samurai and Briareos at all.We also enjoy kicking cripples down flights of stairs.

[Buzz Dixon]

It's grammatically correct for an article title.Sound's like a movie title/tagline:

BARACK OBAMA
IS
ANTI-SEMITE
IN
ELECTION 2008!
This time it's personal!

[Stressfactor]

So let me get this straight: You think it's a good idea to vote for a known liar who lies in order to get what he wants?

Well, considering that Sam seems to think that Obama intends to take the oath of office then hold an auction to sell America to either Russia, Iran, or Osama Bin Laden, pocket the money, then fly to the jungles of Brazil where he will live in gay sin with the ghost of Josef Mengle... yeah.

[Calybos]

Similarly, Obama has been lying through his teeth in his campaigns as well. He's pretending to be a centrist instead of the socialist and radical left-winger that his actions show he is.

So how has Obama been lying? He's a liberal, and he's said he's a liberal. To you, that proves he's some sort of screaming far-left radical, but that doesn't make it true. And he hasn't been "pretending" to be a moderate, either. He's said, flat-out, that he's a liberal.

And that's what America is voting for.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

How many times do I have to say it? I'm not, NOT, NOT a big fan of McCain's policies. I disagree with him a significant amount of the time, and he was pandering like mad during the primaries to try and convince people that he really was a conservative, when he isn't. That's why he sought endorsements from right-wing churches, made claims about siding with Bush, and all the rest. It may have fooled a few people, but I look at actual actions, not words during a campaign. And McCain is a solid centrist in his actions.

Similarly, Obama has been lying through his teeth in his campaigns as well. He's pretending to be a centrist instead of the socialist and radical left-winger that his actions show he is.

So, both campaigns are lying, and in both cases, actions speak louder than words. Looking at their actions, I choose McCain.

Well he is the best liar and he will flip flop fast and is erratic as hell and if it gets us closer to WW III so McCain can fufill his big time legacy then HELL YEAH ! Vote for that liar who will change his stances every few years. He'll lie the best.

Hey, Sam. The Cold War called. It wants its boogeyman back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_bIg3nQR-s

So let me get this straight: You think it's a good idea to vote for a known liar who lies in order to get what he wants?

Hell yes... it works. I mean as Sarah Palin has started ... WHO IS JOHN MCCAIN ? He is a man who basically pisses on ex-soldiers by supporting torture , lying to them when he is found out and blaming Bush. He claims he's a fucking MAVERICK when he lies and says he doesn't support Bush or his party as much. Even though he did 90% of the time .

He tells the best lies basically and he's Republican. The rest don't make a differance. McCain could dress as Hitler for Halloween and his supporters would still be behind him since he's a Republican. Those loyal to the party will never change and will ride this limp horse out.

Many have already saw that McCain is a lying erratic mess of crap and Palin is the absolute worst VP candidate in years and are shifting to Obama quick. But those who are too proud to vote Democrat will never stop supporting McCain.

Even though they admit he's a lying , erratic loser.

Well, considering that Sam seems to think that Obama intends to take the oath of office then hold an auction to sell America to either Russia, Iran, or Osama Bin Laden, pocket the money, then fly to the jungles of Brazil where he will live in gay sin with the ghost of Josef Mengle... yeah.


He's Democrat damn it. Can't support that...the world will end !

[Samurai]

Sam, rereading this thread this morning got me to thinking about these two statements of yours.

Now, please tell me if I'm inferring something here that I shouldn't. I don't think I am, because it looks fairly clear to me.

Your first statement is quite right and proper. A person should be judged on his opinions and his actions, and if you say these opinions are yours and haven't been coloured or influenced by outside parties I choose to believe that. You're clearly an educated individual and I trust you are able to form your own opinions and viewpoints on a subject.

However, your second statement seems to judge Mr Obama purely on the company he keeps, and doesn't afford him the same courtesy of being able to form his own opinions and decide his own actions separate from that company. If we are asked not to find a fellow poster guilty be association, should we also be doing the same thing for a presidential candidate? Based on your own statement, we should be judging him on what he has actually said and actually done, rather than what people he knows have actually said and actually done, shouldn't we?

Does this not strike you as hypocritical? Requesting that you be treated differently to a manner in which you'd choose to treat another man?

Chances are.

Would a quid suffice?

Just to get hod that quid, choosing who your friends are, who you associate and spend time with, which church you go to, where you launch your state senate campaign, what parties you attend, which politician you fly to Africa and spend time campaigning for, and all the rest are actions, and they are actions that can reveal a great deal about a politician.

Obama has done very little of consequence while in office. Often he voted "present" instead of making a decision, and then there were the many occasions he wasn't present because he was out campaigning. When he was there and could come to a decision, he toed the party line and didn't make waves or buck the system.

So we need to look at what he does in the off time, weekends, holidays, and what he did before taking office to see what kind of a man he really is. Going to a racist church for 20 years is a perfect example of the actions that show a man's character. Campaigning for his cousin Odinga (and getting his friends to donate $1 million to Odinga) despite what kind of man he is an action that shows Obama's character. Using the Woods Foundation and Annenberg Assoc to direct funds toward teaching radicalism and leftist ideology in schools is an action that shows his character. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Look, there are some things that are not Obama's fault. Al Queda endorsing him, for instance, is not something he wanted or took any action to create. He couldn't have done anything about that, so it would be a bit unfair to tie Obama to Al Queda simply because they feel his policies would be better for their goals. But there are plenty of associations that were not 1-sided, that Obama actively participated in or even sought out, and spent years fostering. And I'm sure that if the shoe were on the other foot, and McCain had spent 20 years going to Klan meetings but "never heard any racism", befriended unrepentant terrorists, and campaigned and donated for a cousin whose radical followers rioted and killed 1000 people at his behest when he didn't win the election, McCain would never have been allowed to run.

[Joe Rice]

Comparing a black church to the Klan . . .wow.

[TCJohnson]

I don't suppose it matters that if Odinga and Obama are related it is very distantly?

[C-Cool]

...Al Queda endorsed McCain....

[sk716]

. . .

Does this not strike you as hypocritical? Requesting that you be treated differently to a manner in which you'd choose to treat another man?

Nothing Sam says ever strikes him as hypocritical.

[Samurai]

Just a couple of quick questions, Sam...

400,000 fake registrations, Sam? Really?

You have proof of 400,000 fake registrations?

...As opposed to, say, a fraction of a percent false or erroneous registrations...? (You know... erroneous, like spelling of a name or street differs from one gov't database to another...? Y'know, like human error...?)

...And note, please, the difference between VOTER fraud and voter REGISTRATION fraud.

If someone "registers" eleven spurious "voters" in Las Vegas, NV, under the names of the Dallas Cowboys' starting line-up -- that's REGISTRATION fraud. If eleven 5'3", 120 lb. guys show up claiming to BE the starting line of the Dallas Cowboys and try to vote, THAT's voter fraud. It's only the latter case that can actually, fraudulently affect an election' fraudulent registration means NOTHING unless someone actually shows up at the polls and tries to USE it

And of the fraction of one percent of false "registrations" submitted, how many were submitted TO ACORN and NOT passed on to the Registrars of voters and how many were actually submitted BY ACORN to the Registrars?

And if fraudulently registering nonexistent voters who aren't going to show up counts as voter fraud, does fraudulently DEPRIVING legitimate voters by challenging ALL of ACORN's registrations because of the few false ones not ALSO count as voter fraud?

How many of the charges presented in the 14 states you claim are leveled at the individuals who attempted to defraud the system AND defraud ACORN, and how many are leveled at ACORN management?

Because, if you are going to claim that charges targeting the low-level employees = charges placed on the organization and top management, then you pretty much have to charge George Bush with murder every time a buck private kills a civilian in Iraq.

So those are the questions, Sam:

1 - 400,000 fraudulent registrations? Really?
2 - How many false registrations were submitted TO ACORN, and how many of THOSE were subsequently submitted BY ACORN? Are those numbers the same?
3 - Is it voter fraud to dismiss a whole class of registrations because of a few false or erroneous ones?
4 - How many charges have been filed against the INDIVIDUAL ACORN canvasser an how many against ACORN MANAGEMENT for the alleged fraud?
5 - If management is always responsible for the felonies and misdemeanors of its employees, is George Bush a liar, torturer and murderer?

Hell, I'll make it easy on you: If you can answer questions 1 and 2 and show me actual evidence that ACORN managers submitted 400,000 voter registrations that they knew were fraudulent and are up on charges for it, I'll start a thread titled "SAMURAI WAS RIGHT ABOUT ACORN AND I'M A BIG DOO-DOO HEAD!"

If you can't prove it, you shut up about it.

That seems fair, doesn't it?

I'm heading to work in a little while, so no time to give rebuttals after this, but yes, 400,000 fraudulent registrations out of the 1.3 million they registered and submitted, since this was the number caught by election officials after ACORN weeded out any they caught themselves, and that's only the ones they've caught so far.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122495396715269535.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The Great Acorn Conspiracy
Election officials reject almost a third of Acorn's new registrants.
By JOHN FUND

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -- or Acorn -- the troubled left-wing activist group, has new headaches. Last week Michael Slater, head of its Project Vote, admitted that some 400,000 of its claimed 1.3 million newly registered voters were rejected by election officials as either duplicates or fraudulent -- i.e. it doesn't sound as if Acorn's vaunted "quality control" efforts were all that effective.

Some reasons why may be exposed next week in a lawsuit filed by the Republican Party of Pennsylvania in state court. The Web site PolitickerPA reports that Anita Moncrief, an Acorn worker in Washington D.C. from 2005 to 2008, will testify that the group engaged in "minimal to nonexistent" checking of its voter registration work during her time with Project Vote.

The Republican suit, filed by Pittsburgh attorney Heather Heidelbaugh, demands that the Pennsylvania Secretary of State follow federal law requiring that first-time voters using an absentee ballot show some form of identification. It also seeks to have Acorn turn over its voter registration lists, identify registrants who signed up fraudulently and instruct them not to vote.
Other articles describe that the largest problem by far among those registrations was people trying to register multiple times. Now, some of those may just be mistakes, but many of them are probably people trying to become registered multiple times in multiple places so that they can vote more than once. While ACORN so far this election has been involved in mostly Voter Registration Fraud, those activities are a precondition for and enabler of actual Voting Fraud.

Additionally, they have resulted in skewed polling numbers, because pollsters were weighting Democrat poll responses at unprecedented numbers thanks to reports from ACORN and others. If you look at the real poll numbers, or use the weightings from 2006 or 2004, McCain has far higher support than many of the polls have been claiming.

Finally, remember that you don't need to show up in person to vote, you can just send in an absentee ballot, no one has to ever see your face. And even if you do go in and vote, they don't check IDs (they really should require ID when voting, IMO), and you can just say "I'm not THAT Emmett Smith, I just have the same name..."

Can you honestly say that you don't think there will be ANY fraudulent votes cast thanks to ACORN's actions? I'm positive there will be. Of course, facing all these lawsuits, ACORN will say it was "mistakes", "failure of oversight", and all the rest, not active attempts at fraud. But with such a massive and systemic problem, you really have to wonder, and Obama must have thought his $832,000 was buying something worthwhile at ACORN...

[Adam C]

Nah, I kinda like it as is. It's a testament to Briareos' enviable mastery of the English language.

Indeed, though I'm still wondering what a "facist state" would look like.

[thespianphryne]

Ah . . . I was under the impression that ACORN is under legal obligation to hand in all completed and delivered voter registration forms.

Also, as non-existent as their quality control and flagging may be, how on earth does this detract from Obama's candidature?

[Charles RB]

Just to get hod that quid, choosing who your friends are, who you associate and spend time with, which church you go to, where you launch your state senate campaign, what parties you attend, which politician you fly to Africa and spend time campaigning for, and all the rest are actions, and they are actions that can reveal a great deal about a politician.

So why do you ignore these actions when McCain and Palin do them?

[Matt Doc Martin]

I'm heading to work in a little while, so no time to give rebuttals after this, but yes, 400,000 fraudulent registrations out of the 1.3 million they registered and submitted, since this was the number caught by election officials after ACORN weeded out any they caught themselves, and that's only the ones they've caught so far.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122495396715269535.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


Other articles describe that the largest problem by far among those registrations was people trying to register multiple times. Now, some of those may just be mistakes, but many of them are probably people trying to become registered multiple times in multiple places so that they can vote more than once. While ACORN so far this election has been involved in mostly Voter Registration Fraud, those activities are a precondition for and enabler of actual Voting Fraud.

Additionally, they have resulted in skewed polling numbers, because pollsters were weighting Democrat poll responses at unprecedented numbers thanks to reports from ACORN and others. If you look at the real poll numbers, or use the weightings from 2006 or 2004, McCain has far higher support than many of the polls have been claiming.

Finally, remember that you don't need to show up in person to vote, you can just send in an absentee ballot, no one has to ever see your face. And even if you do go in and vote, they don't check IDs (they really should require ID when voting, IMO), and you can just say "I'm not THAT Emmett Smith, I just have the same name..."

Can you honestly say that you don't think there will be ANY fraudulent votes cast thanks to ACORN's actions? I'm positive there will be. Of course, facing all these lawsuits, ACORN will say it was "mistakes", "failure of oversight", and all the rest, not active attempts at fraud. But with such a massive and systemic problem, you really have to wonder, and Obama must have thought his $832,000 was buying something worthwhile at ACORN...


Actually, I know some states, if not many, do. Florida I know does.


States That Request Photo ID
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Indiana
Louisiana
Michigan
South Dakota


States that Require ID (photo not required)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Kentucky
Missouri
Montana
North Dakota
Ohio
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Washington

[JeffreyWKramer]

This is a fascinating view of Obama that has, just so you know Sam, no actual basis in reality.

A show of hands as to who is surprised by this?

As for meeting with the opposition -that's how you make peace, Samurai.
No, no, you bluster and invade and waterboard your way to peace. That's the way of the folk Samurai supports.

[GozertheGozarian]

Looks like I was a few minutes too late with that PM.

[JeffreyWKramer]

A helpful chart for those new to the thread:

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/5020/samuraiqc3.jpg

That's accurate as far as it goes.

However, you neglected to show that the domain "Samuari's argument" overlaps greatly with the domains "Lies" and "Bullshit."

[JeffreyWKramer]

This is very close to my reasoning for voting third party this election for President.

There are more than two parties running. There are more than two candidates.

I've voted third party candidates before and would again if I thought any of them was a good choice as President. Sadly, that's not the case this time around.

Personally, I loathe the two-party system. It tends to leave us with "bad" and "worse" as the choices.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I think that's one area where Palin is definitely a fast learner.

She's already parroting Cheney's bizarre and indefensible misstatements about the vice presidency.

[JeffreyWKramer]

So let me get this straight: You think it's a good idea to vote for a known liar who lies in order to get what he wants?

He's supported the current Administration, so obviously that answer is "yes."

[The Beast Of Yucca Flats]

Well, considering that Sam seems to think that Obama intends to take the oath of office then hold an auction to sell America to either Russia, Iran, or Osama Bin Laden, pocket the money, then fly to the jungles of Brazil where he will live in gay sin with the ghost of Josef Mengle... yeah.

Will you marry me?

(there, that was probably my whole contribution to the thread)

[thehod]

Just to get hod that quid, choosing who your friends are, who you associate and spend time with, which church you go to, where you launch your state senate campaign, what parties you attend, which politician you fly to Africa and spend time campaigning for, and all the rest are actions, and they are actions that can reveal a great deal about a politician.

Obama has done very little of consequence while in office. Often he voted "present" instead of making a decision, and then there were the many occasions he wasn't present because he was out campaigning. When he was there and could come to a decision, he toed the party line and didn't make waves or buck the system.

So we need to look at what he does in the off time, weekends, holidays, and what he did before taking office to see what kind of a man he really is. Going to a racist church for 20 years is a perfect example of the actions that show a man's character. Campaigning for his cousin Odinga (and getting his friends to donate $1 million to Odinga) despite what kind of man he is an action that shows Obama's character. Using the Woods Foundation and Annenberg Assoc to direct funds toward teaching radicalism and leftist ideology in schools is an action that shows his character. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Look, there are some things that are not Obama's fault. Al Queda endorsing him, for instance, is not something he wanted or took any action to create. He couldn't have done anything about that, so it would be a bit unfair to tie Obama to Al Queda simply because they feel his policies would be better for their goals. But there are plenty of associations that were not 1-sided, that Obama actively participated in or even sought out, and spent years fostering. And I'm sure that if the shoe were on the other foot, and McCain had spent 20 years going to Klan meetings but "never heard any racism", befriended unrepentant terrorists, and campaigned and donated for a cousin whose radical followers rioted and killed 1000 people at his behest when he didn't win the election, McCain would never have been allowed to run.

So the answer to all that was yes, we are allowed to judge Mr Obama based on his associations and to assume his opinions and actions are as a result of said associations, but we're not supposed to do the same thing with you because, as you've said, your opinions and actions are based soley on your own choices, and not a result of any outside influences. Unlike, apparently, Mr Obama's.

Cool

As long as we all know where we stand.

[Paul McEnery]

Indeed, though I'm still wondering what a "facist state" would look like.

Your face is a state.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

No, no, you bluster and invade and waterboard your way to peace. That's the way of the folk Samurai supports.

Peace without War is for p-ssies !

[TomStillwell]

You're right... no one is holding a gun to the Obots heads, they are marching along either willingly or unwittingly.

And McCain was cleared in the Keating 5 thing, remember? So, not a criminal. But if you are THAT sensitive to both the appearance of impropriety and inexperience, HOW IN THE WORLD can you vote for Obama, who has BOTH? Not only did Obama have dealings with Tony Rezko, including buying houses together (in which Obama got a special deal) and Obama writing letters to recommend Rezko get several housing projects (which he turned into slums), and not only did Obama go to Kenya in 2006 on taxpayer money to campaign for his murdering cousin Odinga and Obama got his top contributers to give $1 million to Odinga's campaign (which turned into a bloodbath when Odinga lost), and not only did Obama get the 2nd highest all-time amount of contributions from Fannie and Freddie in just 2 years, but in addition Obama gave $832,000 to ACORN to pay for their fraudulent "get out the vote" campaign that has resulted in over 400,000 fraudulent names being registered (and still counting) and charges/indictments in 14 states so far. And Obama helped them to bring lawsuits against banks in order to pressure the banks to give more unsecured loans to people who normally would never have qualified, which helped create the whole housing crash we're in!

On top of all that, Obama has less experience than Sarah Palin! They have equally short political careers, but she has executive experience at running a state and a city, he has nothing of the sort. She fought big oil, got tax refunds for Alaskans, negotiated the largest man-made project in the history of North America (!), and fought corruption in both her own party and the other. He only say in Congress, voted "Present 130 times instead of making tough decisions, campaigned for his next job instead of doing the job he was elected for, never convened the Senate subcommittee he was put in charge of even once, and never passed any meaningful, ground-breaking legislation or bucked his party leaders.

So, if you are concerned with the appearance of corruption and inexperienced leadership, your choice on Nov 4 should be very clear to you now.

Rick Renzi
G. Gordon Liddy
General Augusto Pinochet
RENAMO

Google those names and McCain. Read.

[CutterMike]

I'm heading to work in a little while, so no time to give rebuttals after this, but yes, 400,000 fraudulent [Emphasis mine -M-]registrations out of the 1.3 million they registered and submitted, since this was the number caught by election officials after ACORN weeded out any they caught themselves, and that's only the ones they've caught so far.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122495396715269535.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Hmmm...

By contrast, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/us/politics/24acorn.html?hp=&pagewanted=all) site (in the "NEWS" section, as opposed to the "OPINION" section of the WSJ that you quoted, says:
The remainder are registered voters who were changing their address and roughly 400,000 that were rejected by election officials for a variety of reasons, including duplicate registrations, incomplete forms and fraudulent submissions from low-paid field workers trying to please their supervisors, Mr. Slater acknowledged.
So, not 400,000 FRAUDULENT, unless you're counting registrations from people who moved and incomplete forms as "intentional perversion of truth ." (Merriam-Webster Online: "fraud")

Can you honestly say that you don't think there will be ANY fraudulent votes cast thanks to ACORN's actions? I'm positive there will be. I, frankly, generally assume that there will be approximately as many fraudulent votes among among overzealous Democrats as there will be among overzealous Republicans. It's pretty much the nature of the beast.

Of course, facing all these lawsuits, ACORN will say it was "mistakes", "failure of oversight", and all the rest, not active attempts at fraud. But with such a massive and systemic problem, you really have to wonder, and Obama must have thought his $832,000 was buying something worthwhile at ACORN...I'm sure that they expected to see increased Democratic registrations.

...Just the way that the Republican party expected to see an increase in Republican registrations for the money they paid to hire Mark Jacoby and Nathan Sproul.
Accusations of impropriety by a Republican voter registration campaign surfaced this week in California, where the authorities arrested the owner of a firm hired by the California Republican Party to register voters. Officials said that the owner, Mark Jacoby, fraudulently registered himself at a childhood address to qualify for gathering signatures on petitions and registering voters.

Mr. Jacoby’s firm, Young Political Majors, is also facing accusations of tricking residents into registering as Republicans by having them sign petitions seeking tougher penalties for child molesters.

Mr. Jacoby’s lawyer, Dan Goldfine, said that the charges against his client were “baseless,” and added that although the authorities have been looking into accusations that Mr. Jacoby’s firm improperly registered voters, they did not charge him with those violations.

In June, federal election records show, the California Republican Party paid $175,000 for voter registration work to the firm of a Republican operative, Nathan Sproul, who has been investigated for voter registration fraud in several states. Mr. Sproul could not be reached for comment.(ibid)

[CutterMike]

Oh... and I note this from the WSJ:
U.S. Mulls Talks With Taliban in Bid to Quell Afghan Unrest
Gen. Petraeus Backs Effort to Win Over Some Elements of Group
By YOCHI J. DREAZEN, SIOBHAN GORMAN and JAY SOLOMON
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. is actively considering talks with elements of the Taliban, the armed Islamist group that once ruled Afghanistan and sheltered al Qaeda, in a major policy shift that would have been unthinkable a few months ago.
(more)THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND DAVID PETRAEUS ARE TERRORIST SYMPATHIZERS!!! WE'LL ALL BE MURDERED IN OUR BEDS!!!!!!:rolleyes:

[Matt Algren]

If someone submits a voter registration form for Mickey Mouse (for instance), doesn't it HAVE to be accepted? The checking comes when they get to the voting booth.

[Solaris]

That was during the primaries, when he was saying and doing everything he could to appeal to conservative voters and downplay his centrist/RINO image. He was lying, his record shows that, and anyone with a decent memory will recall his numerous disagreements with Bush and Republican policies.


I can see the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, Sam (between supporters like you, and McCain himself).

You're so far gone tickling his tonsils from the wrong end, you'll even bald-faced say "the man was lying" and still excuse him for lying on what should be one of the most important issues in the campaign, in the same sentence???

The man has a long history of flip-flopping on issues and with the press---whichever direction the wind is blowing that he thinks will serve John McCain best, that's the direction he turns and points to.

And I noted in a post above that you referenced his stance on treason... but never said what it was. Are you so afraid of the truth that you cannot bring yourself to type the words, "At one point he said he was against the govt. torturing prisoners, but has since done a 180 degree turn, and now says that we *ought* to be allowed to torture prisoners to get information out of them,"? Because that's the truth.

Give it up, Sam. Everyone here (excluding Bri, of course) knows that you've decided to walk around with a glass bubble on your head, that has pretty Republican Fundie pictures painted on the inside... and that every word you post regarding politics or gay rights or religion has nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with the "plastic wonderland" you've covered your eyes, ears, and brain with.

[Solaris]

How many times do I have to say it? I'm not, NOT, NOT a big fan of McCain's policies. I disagree with him a significant amount of the time, and he was pandering like mad during the primaries to try and convince people that he really was a conservative, when he isn't. That's why he sought endorsements from right-wing churches, made claims about siding with Bush, and all the rest. It may have fooled a few people, but I look at actual actions, not words during a campaign. And McCain is a solid centrist in his actions.

Similarly, Obama has been lying through his teeth in his campaigns as well. He's pretending to be a centrist instead of the socialist and radical left-winger that his actions show he is.

So, both campaigns are lying, and in both cases, actions speak louder than words. Looking at their actions, I choose McCain.

And looking at their actions, I choose Obama---which in your own words, makes me an Obamabot, the inference being that I think and vote as programmed, as an automaton, rather than as an intelligent, independent entity.

Looked in a mirror lately, Sam?

[MacQuarrie]

I've voted third party candidates before and would again if I thought any of them was a good choice as President. Sadly, that's not the case this time around.

Personally, I loathe the two-party system. It tends to leave us with "bad" and "worse" as the choices.

The Two-Party System explained:

In any election, we are usually asked to choose between...

two crooks
two idiots
one of each

Generally, this is done through two "parties", which we will call "Zombies" and "Clowns".

Zombies are shambling, dessicated, walking husks of the living dead, bent on world domination.

Clowns are disorganized fools who just want everybody to be happy.

If you oppose the Zombies, you have to self-identify as a clown or it doesn't count. And vice-versa. Suggesting that you would prefer not to be a zombie nor a clown makes you a space alien.

Does that clear it up?

[Solaris]

Just to get hod that quid, choosing who your friends are, who you associate and spend time with, which church you go to, where you launch your state senate campaign, what parties you attend, which politician you fly to Africa and spend time campaigning for, and all the rest are actions, and they are actions that can reveal a great deal about a politician.

Obama has done very little of consequence while in office. Often he voted "present" instead of making a decision, and then there were the many occasions he wasn't present because he was out campaigning. When he was there and could come to a decision, he toed the party line and didn't make waves or buck the system.

So we need to look at what he does in the off time, weekends, holidays, and what he did before taking office to see what kind of a man he really is. Going to a racist church for 20 years is a perfect example of the actions that show a man's character. Campaigning for his cousin Odinga (and getting his friends to donate $1 million to Odinga) despite what kind of man he is an action that shows Obama's character. Using the Woods Foundation and Annenberg Assoc to direct funds toward teaching radicalism and leftist ideology in schools is an action that shows his character. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Look, there are some things that are not Obama's fault. Al Queda endorsing him, for instance, is not something he wanted or took any action to create. He couldn't have done anything about that, so it would be a bit unfair to tie Obama to Al Queda simply because they feel his policies would be better for their goals. But there are plenty of associations that were not 1-sided, that Obama actively participated in or even sought out, and spent years fostering. And I'm sure that if the shoe were on the other foot, and McCain had spent 20 years going to Klan meetings but "never heard any racism", befriended unrepentant terrorists, and campaigned and donated for a cousin whose radical followers rioted and killed 1000 people at his behest when he didn't win the election, McCain would never have been allowed to run.

Gods help you if your die-hard Republican friends ever find out that you've been hanging out for YEARS on a website full of liberal, gay-supporting, mixed-bag religion COMIC BOOK FANS!!!

You'll be tarred, feathered, and shipped out of town so fast by them, you won't know what hit you.

After all---you've hung out with us for YEARS... that must mean you're *OMG* LIKE us. The Same. A perverted, liberal, hippie, tree-hugging, tolerance-promoting, gay marriage supporting freakazoid!

Oh Sam---and all this time we just *knew* you were a Rock of Gibralter Conservative! Good to know you're on OUR side now---seeing as how you hang with us, and hence *must* be just like us, and that our opinions really ARE... you know... your OWN.

:rolleyes:

[CutterMike]

Gods help you if your die-hard Republican friends ever find out that you've been hanging out for YEARS on a website full of liberal, gay-supporting, mixed-bag religion COMIC BOOK FANS!!!

You'll be tarred, feathered, and shipped out of town so fast by them, you won't know what hit you.

After all---you've hung out with us for YEARS... that must mean you're *OMG* LIKE us. The Same. A perverted, liberal, hippie, tree-hugging, tolerance-promoting, gay marriage supporting freakazoid!

Oh Sam---and all this time we just *knew* you were a Rock of Gibralter Conservative! Good to know you're on OUR side now---seeing as how you hang with us, and hence *must* be just like us, and that our opinions really ARE... you know... your OWN.

:rolleyes:
Can I join the harem of people who adore you?

[Solaris]

Can I join the harem of people who adore you?

I love harems! Yes, absolutely!

(But you'll have to accept the fact that I am a member of *your* harem, and Typo's, and MacQ's, and Puma's, and a lot of other folks who've been trimming Sam and Bri's bullshit sails and hyprocritical jibs down to the bare truth.) :biggrin:

[Stressfactor]

That's kind of the thing about Sam, though.... He's been on here saying that he doesn't really support McCain but he won't even consider voting third party or writing in a person's name that he DOES support.

He'd rather "vote the party line" rather than taking a stand and voting his conscience. Even if his write-in candidate didn't win he'd at least know that he didn't vote for something he didn't really belive in.

"This above all -- to thine own self be true" obviously holds no meaning for him.

(And for the record... I'm waiting for the Green Party to field someone really good)

[MacQuarrie]

That's kind of the thing about Sam, though.... He's been on here saying that he doesn't really support McCain but he won't even consider voting third party or writing in a person's name that he DOES support.

He'd rather "vote the party line" rather than taking a stand and voting his conscience. Even if his write-in candidate didn't win he'd at least know that he didn't vote for something he didn't really belive in.

"This above all -- to thine own self be true" obviously holds no meaning for him.

(And for the record... I'm waiting for the Green Party to field someone really good)
No, you must choose. What's it going to be, Zombie or Clown?

[Red Jack]

After all---you've hung out with us for YEARS... that must mean you're *OMG* LIKE us. The Same. A perverted, liberal, hippie, tree-hugging, tolerance-promoting, gay marriage supporting freakazoid!

I like to refer to you as "My Base."

[CutterMike]

No, you must choose. What's it going to be, Zombie or Clown?No Zombie Clowns...?

But... They'd be so frikkin' COOL!

[Stressfactor]

No, you must choose. What's it going to be, Zombie or Clown?

B-b-but.... you said anyone who voted Third Party got to be a Space Alien! Space Aliens are cooool! I mean there's Doctor Who -- he's got a ship that can travel through time and space, that cool, and Frank the Dog from "Men in Black" and Spock! Dear God, you can't get any cooler than Spock! Oh, wait, he's half human... hmmm, well.... There's Odo -- he was a shape shifter, that's cool. And Chewbacca! Wookies rip arms off of people they don't agree with -- that's good, right? And Yoda -- he was wise and he had the Force and he could kick serious ass when he was younger even if he was only about 3 feet tall....

So.... space aliens are cool.

[Jared H.]

No Zombie Clowns...?

But... They'd be so frikkin' COOL!

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f356/young20_Mikey2006/clownkillsu.jpg

[Charles RB]

I love harems! Yes, absolutely!

(But you'll have to accept the fact that I am a member of *your* harem, and Typo's, and MacQ's, and Puma's, and a lot of other folks who've been trimming Sam and Bri's bullshit sails and hyprocritical jibs down to the bare truth.) :biggrin:

So if I joined your harem, I'm also a member of multiple harems who are members of my harem which is actually someone else's harem?

It's the sexual version of pure communism!

[Linkara]

So if I joined your harem, I'm also a member of multiple harems who are members of my harem which is actually someone else's harem?

It's the sexual version of pure communism!

As a capitalist, I want my own harem.

[Typo Lad]

I love harems! Yes, absolutely!

(But you'll have to accept the fact that I am a member of *your* harem, and Typo's, and MacQ's, and Puma's, and a lot of other folks who've been trimming Sam and Bri's bullshit sails and hyprocritical jibs down to the bare truth.) :biggrin:

You are TRYING to get me in trouble with mah woman, aren't you?

[Buzz Dixon]

No, you must choose. What's it going to be, Zombie or Clown?

http://www.creaturescape.com/interviews/blair/patches2.jpg



(...and if the image doesn't come through... http://www.creaturescape.com/interviews/blair/patches2.jpg )

[Typo Lad]

ignore this

[sk716]

Gods help you if your die-hard Republican friends ever find out that you've been hanging out for YEARS on a website full of liberal, gay-supporting, mixed-bag religion COMIC BOOK FANS!!!

You'll be tarred, feathered, and shipped out of town so fast by them, you won't know what hit you.

After all---you've hung out with us for YEARS... that must mean you're *OMG* LIKE us. The Same. A perverted, liberal, hippie, tree-hugging, tolerance-promoting, gay marriage supporting freakazoid!

Oh Sam---and all this time we just *knew* you were a Rock of Gibralter Conservative! Good to know you're on OUR side now---seeing as how you hang with us, and hence *must* be just like us, and that our opinions really ARE... you know... your OWN.

:rolleyes:

The score is now:

Solaris: 4,000,000,000
Samurai: 0

[Solaris]

So if I joined your harem, I'm also a member of multiple harems who are members of my harem which is actually someone else's harem?

It's the sexual version of pure communism!


*fingers fur flail* You... WANT this... don't you...?

Ah, drat it, now you're onto my evil plot! Quick, Minions---throw him into the brainwashing vat of whipped cream and leather midicholorians! We must bring him to the Sex Side before Sami Bri Nobama learns of this!


You are TRYING to get me in trouble with mah woman, aren't you?

*evil chuckle* Ha ha ha, fool! Did you not know that she is my SISTER? You were WISE to hide her from me... but if YOU will not turn to the Sex Side... perhaps SHE WILL.

*ducks and runs for cover from the inevitable screaming lightsaber attack*

[Solaris]

ignore this

How can I ignore it??? You just pointed it out!!

The camel's left knee! AARGH! ARGH! ARGH! This does not compute!

:wink:

[Typo Lad]

*evil chuckle* Ha ha ha, fool! Did you not know that she is my SISTER?

...

That's kinda disturbing.

You were WISE to hide her from me... but if YOU will not turn to the Sex Side... perhaps SHE WILL.

*ducks and runs for cover from the inevitable screaming lightsaber attack*

That's no lightsaber.

[Solaris]

The score is now:

Solaris: 4,000,000,000
Samurai: 0

Holy MOLY---I've almost got as many points as Finn does in his Lego Star Wars game!!! (I'm not kidding w/that, btw.)

Wow.

Do you think I'm ready to take on the Daleks now?

[Solaris]

http://www.creaturescape.com/interviews/blair/patches2.jpg



(...and if the image doesn't come through... http://www.creaturescape.com/interviews/blair/patches2.jpg )


You're one of those aggravating people who, when asked "pie or cake?" says "Yes," aren't you?

:tongue:

[Solaris]

...

That's kinda disturbing.



That's no lightsaber.


*grabs da laday and puts her in Typo's path* Quick, honey, cover for me, will ya? I have an urgent appointment in Brisbane right about now...

*runs off chuckling as Morts stops dead in his tracks at the look in his wife's eye*

*misses the ensuing romantic interlude*

*in Brisbane, wonders why we're having a world-wide earthquake*

:biggrin:

[Buzz Dixon]

ignore thisI will NOT!

[Buzz Dixon]

You're one of those aggravating people who, when asked "pie or cake?" says "Yes," aren't you?

:tongue:Alas, no; I'm one of the ones who ask, "Why are you bothering to slice it?"

[Solaris]

Alas, no; I'm one of the ones who ask, "Why are you bothering to slice it?"

To get at the gooey filling?

[thehod]

Do you think I'm ready to take on the Daleks now?

I dunno, do you look anything like this....?

http://www.scandalouscandice.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/05/26/article102178701628c1d00000578444_4.jpg

[Solaris]

I dunno, do you look anything like this....?

http://www.scandalouscandice.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/05/26/article102178701628c1d00000578444_4.jpg



No.










I'm prettier.

*gigglesnortfits*

[thehod]

No.

I'm prettier.

*gigglesnortfits*

Of that, I've no doubt whatsoever.




I still remember some of your old avatars.

[Kurt Busiek]

This is a bizarre argument.

If I'm understanding it correctly, two McCain supporters are making the argument that since Obama attended a farewell party for Rashid Khalidi, a pro-Palestinian activist, this proves that Obama is anti-Semitic and no one of intelligence or good moral character could honorably vote for him.

These people are apparently unaware of, or unconcerned with, the fact that John McCain, when he was head of the International Republican Institute, gave financial grants to Khalidi's pro-Palestinian research group, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars -- one 1998 grant alone was for $448,873.

Apparently, attending a party with someone establishes that their opinions march in lockstep. Funneling large sums of money to someone is, however, guilt-neutral.

I would assume that many McCain supporters will be tying themselves in knots arguing that financial support of Khalidi means nothing compared to being at a party for him.

But it's still a bizarre argument to make.

kdb

[Solaris]

Of that, I've no doubt whatsoever.




I still remember some of your old avatars.


Awww... now I'm blushing!

(I just won't say where. Hee.)


Seriously, I'm just in a really good mood tonight... and I'm listening to my Halloween playlist, that has a lot of fun stuff on it.

[Solaris]

This is a bizarre argument.

If I'm understanding it correctly, two McCain supporters are making the argument that since Obama attended a farewell party for Rashid Khalidi, a pro-Palestinian activist, this proves that Obama is anti-Semitic and no one of intelligence or good moral character could honorably vote for him.

These people are apparently unaware of, or unconcerned with, the fact that John McCain, when he was head of the International Republican Institute, gave financial grants to Khalidi's pro-Palestinian research group, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars -- one 1998 grant alone was for $448,873.

Apparently, attending a party with someone establishes that their opinions march in lockstep. Funneling large sums of money to someone is, however, guilt-neutral.

I would assume that many McCain supporters will be tying themselves in knots arguing that financial support of Khalidi means nothing compared to being at a party for him.

But it's still a bizarre argument to make.

kdb


And thus, the Gordian Knot was cut.

:biggrin: Great post, Kurt!

[JeffreyWKramer]

But it's still a bizarre argument to make.


Well, these are the same people arguing that Sarah Palin is a sound choice to potentially lead this nation, so I don't think it's surprising to have them making other bizarre claims.

[Solaris]

Well, these are the same people arguing that Sarah Palin is a sound choice to potentially lead this nation, so I don't think it's surprising to have them making other bizarre claims.

*complains* Jeffrey! You're gonna give me NIGHTMARES!

:wink:

We need Palin like a fish needs a bicycle.

[akumasan]

How can anyone vote for him is beyond me:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/confirmed-msm-holds-video-of-barack.html

well it looks like we all fell for it. You should get your own "whining radio show"

[MacQuarrie]

The best thing about this election cycle is watching reasonably intelligent people go through Olympic-level moral and mental contortions in order to try to defend the indefensible.

Very entertaining.

[thehod]

The best thing about this election cycle is watching reasonably intelligent people go through Olympic-level moral and mental contortions in order to try to defend the indefensible.

Very entertaining.

What game can we play when the election is over?

[TCJohnson]

I started to respond to this, then my browser crashed. Which is good, because now I can cool down a bit.



I'm not saying you're trying, but you are. And you're not posting the truth - you're posting your opinion, taking things and twisting them to fit it. You don't like the guy, you don't like his party, and you'll take whatever you have to make everyone scared of him, no matter how far fetched.

What do I mean?

For starters, you keep confusing Anti-Semitism with Anti-Zionism. You can be one without being the other. Further, you are positing that being pro-Palestinian Rights is the same thing as being an Anti-Zionist (although calling it Anti-Semitism). This is patently false, and if it were so, the Israeli and Americangovernments would be Anti-Zionist organizations at this point. Finally, you keep saying "Obama is this" and when asked why, say "people who support him are". That is not the same thing.



I did. I see that the Senator attended a dinner supporting someone who supports the Palestinian people. There is no issue to be had with that, considering that the United States officially supports a two-state solution.

Further, if attending a dinner is an issue, then surely that puts Palin's video greeting the the Secessionist party back on the table, no? This is about as silly as that.

I also see that some people think he'd be more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than perhaps McCain. I think this is accurate as well, in a good way. Senator Obama seems calmer and more patient, which is what you want in someone dealing with international negotiations. I think that is a good thing, as to the majority of the citizens of the State of Israel, who currently overwhelmingly support a two-State solution.

I also see that some people who feel that way are kinda nuts... as you note:



The thing about running for President in a free country is that you don't get to pick and choose who votes for you. There are plenty of nuts in both trees. Saying "People who support him are Anti-Semitic" (and there's no other word for Farrakhan's feelings) would be accurate.

Senator Obama's policies contain no Anti-Semetic or Anti-Zionist elements.



He's constantly spoken in support of Israel, and has strong ties to an American Religious Zionist organization, a point you are ignoring because it disrupts your slander.



Which is the current policy of this administration, an administration that continues to refuse to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel. This is in direct violation of US Federal law. To be fair, President Clinton was the first President to ignore that law after signing the bill, and President Bush is just continuing that policy. Legally, the United States is required to relocate the embassy to Jerusalem instead of Tel Aviv (Israel is insulted with a mere consulate), and until it does so there isn't supposed to be a budget.

Really. I can get the law details if you like.



Except he's not saying these things. That's the point.



McCain's past is just as bad, and Obama was never tried for anything.



My father has recently been saying that McCain's greatest weakness may be that he "panders poorly". By this he means he's uncomfortable and it shows when he's pandering. Obama is far smoother.

Do I think Obama is pandering? Of course he is. That's why I try to look at his actions instead of his words. His actions, to me, speak far louder. McCain tried to politicize the budget crisis - Senator Obama did not. McCain picked an underqualified running mate- Obama picked someone who is likely more qualified than he. McCain announces he's pulling out of a state, then requests his supporters keep fundraising there... and the list goes on.



You can't awaken someone who isn't asleep, Samurai.

I'm not trying to be a douche, but you don't know anything about American Politics. You treat it like a spectator sport, and cheer on you team. That's the kind of think that's honest to G-d, killing America.

Further, you continue to substitute Anti-Zionism for Anti-Semitism. It's race baiting, and offensive.

Obama has been and continues to be strongly tied to a religious Zionist organization. In Chicago the Jewish community raves about him.

Further, I don't know about you, but I'm voting for the President of the United States. When it comes to Israel, both major candidates are fine choices. Really. Ergo, I can ignore that issue and focus on others - like Gay Rights, Reproductive Rights, and the Fiscal Crisis.

I cannot and will not vote for a candidate who says that being pro-gay rights is a deal-breaker for being a VP candidate ("rights", his word, not marriage"). I cannot and will not vote for a candidate who refers to people who are pro-choice as pro-abortion, and who wants to put more Conservative judges on the supreme court. I cannot and will not vote for a candidate who tried to turn the current economic crisis into a photo op. Further, I cannot and will not vote for a candidate who says he will make pork-barrel rider abusers "famous" and veto any pork, and then, after signing in a rescue package that includes pork (which I would forgive due to the crisis nature), has not said "boo" about those offenders. I cannot and will not vote for someone who hires the author of the Enron loophole to be his fiscal adviser, and then after firing him for being a bone-head, appoints a person who managed to tank HP/Compaq and get one of the most obscene golden parachutes in tech history - another thing he's publicly spoken out against.

I understand that you don't want to vote for Obama, and there are real reasons not to (indeed, some of my minuses are pluses for others). But don't make shit up.

The man is not an Anti-Semite.

I still would really like to know Samurai's response to this.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I still would really like to know Samurai's response to this.
Denial, obfuscation, avoiding the points, moving the goalposts, strawman arguments, attempting to change the subject.

In other words, same as his response to pretty much everything.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

This is a bizarre argument.

If I'm understanding it correctly, two McCain supporters are making the argument that since Obama attended a farewell party for Rashid Khalidi, a pro-Palestinian activist, this proves that Obama is anti-Semitic and no one of intelligence or good moral character could honorably vote for him.

These people are apparently unaware of, or unconcerned with, the fact that John McCain, when he was head of the International Republican Institute, gave financial grants to Khalidi's pro-Palestinian research group, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars -- one 1998 grant alone was for $448,873.

Apparently, attending a party with someone establishes that their opinions march in lockstep. Funneling large sums of money to someone is, however, guilt-neutral.

I would assume that many McCain supporters will be tying themselves in knots arguing that financial support of Khalidi means nothing compared to being at a party for him.

But it's still a bizarre argument to make.

kdb

Your like that scene in Avengers you wrote with Thor. Where Ultron has taken over the country and the team has battled itself to his HQ. And Thor stands there all pissed "Ultron , we would have words with thee !"

Thats what your post was like man. Awesome...

[Matt Algren]

Denial, obfuscation, avoiding the points, moving the goalposts, strawman arguments, attempting to change the subject.

In other words, same as his response to pretty much everything.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Buzz Dixon]

The best thing about this election cycle is watching reasonably intelligent people go through Olympic-level moral and mental contortions in order to try to defend the indefensible.

Very entertaining."Are you an acrobat?"

"Only philosophically."

-- THE 7 FACES OF DR. LAO

[JeffreyWKramer]

Your like that scene in Avengers you wrote with Thor. Where Ultron has taken over the country and the team has battled itself to his HQ. And Thor stands there all pissed "Ultron , we would have words with thee !"

Thats what your post was like man. Awesome...
That's possibly the most embarassingly nerdgasmic praise post I've ever seen.

[Spike-X]

I would assume that many McCain supporters will be tying themselves in knots arguing that financial support of Khalidi means nothing compared to being at a party for him.


I'll bring the popcorn.

[Charles RB]

Quick, Minions---throw him into the brainwashing vat of whipped cream and leather midicholorians! We must bring him to the Sex Side before Sami Bri Nobama learns of this!

Hell, why wait for the minions?!

*dives into vat*


These people are apparently unaware of, or unconcerned with, the fact that John McCain, when he was head of the International Republican Institute, gave financial grants to Khalidi's pro-Palestinian research group, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars

AHHHHH HA HA. :biggrin:

[Solaris]

That's possibly the most embarassingly nerdgasmic praise post I've ever seen.

Wasn't it freakin' AWESOME?!?



Hell, why wait for the minions?!

*dives into vat*


*hands Charles a swim mask*

[SUPERECWFAN1]

That's possibly the most embarassingly nerdgasmic praise post I've ever seen.

I know....I have much love for his Avengers......it must be said ....his Avengers kicked ass and was awesome.

[CutterMike]

*fingers fur flail* You... WANT this... don't you...?

Ah, drat it, now you're onto my evil plot! Quick, Minions---throw him into the brainwashing vat of whipped cream and leather midicholorians! We must bring him to the Sex Side before Sami Bri Nobama learns of this!
(...)Turns slowly towards Charles, arms held out at shoulder height) Ye-e-e-e-e-e-s-s-s, Mis-s-s-stres-s-s-s-s Solaris-s-s-s-s-s....!

[CutterMike]

Blather, rinse, repeat.I fixed that for you.

[BnL]

That was during the primaries, when he was saying and doing everything he could to appeal to conservative voters and downplay his centrist/RINO image. He was lying, his record shows that, and anyone with a decent memory will recall his numerous disagreements with Bush and Republican policies.

Sam, the dates of those statements appear in the corner of the video. Two of them were from 2003, and one was from 2005. Well before the primaries began.

[Michael P]

This is a bizarre argument.

If I'm understanding it correctly, two McCain supporters are making the argument that since Obama attended a farewell party for Rashid Khalidi, a pro-Palestinian activist, this proves that Obama is anti-Semitic and no one of intelligence or good moral character could honorably vote for him.

These people are apparently unaware of, or unconcerned with, the fact that John McCain, when he was head of the International Republican Institute, gave financial grants to Khalidi's pro-Palestinian research group, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars -- one 1998 grant alone was for $448,873.

Apparently, attending a party with someone establishes that their opinions march in lockstep. Funneling large sums of money to someone is, however, guilt-neutral.

I would assume that many McCain supporters will be tying themselves in knots arguing that financial support of Khalidi means nothing compared to being at a party for him.

But it's still a bizarre argument to make.

kdb

Kurt Busiek wins again.

[Charles RB]

*hands Charles a swim mask*

Yeah, like I'd be wearing anything when doing that dive... :tongue:

[[]D[]/\/\[]D @ Nite/So-tite]

How did this reach 26 pages again?

[Paul McEnery]

Yeah, like I'd be wearing anything when doing that dive... :tongue:

We would hope for pasties with the tassels.
















No, not that sort of pasties.

[Perry Holley]

This is a bizarre argument.

If I'm understanding it correctly, two McCain supporters are making the argument that since Obama attended a farewell party for Rashid Khalidi, a pro-Palestinian activist, this proves that Obama is anti-Semitic and no one of intelligence or good moral character could honorably vote for him.

These people are apparently unaware of, or unconcerned with, the fact that John McCain, when he was head of the International Republican Institute, gave financial grants to Khalidi's pro-Palestinian research group, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars -- one 1998 grant alone was for $448,873.

Apparently, attending a party with someone establishes that their opinions march in lockstep. Funneling large sums of money to someone is, however, guilt-neutral.

I would assume that many McCain supporters will be tying themselves in knots arguing that financial support of Khalidi means nothing compared to being at a party for him.

But it's still a bizarre argument to make.

kdbGame, set, match.

[section 8]

D[]/\/\[]D @ Nite/So-tite;7803381']How did this reach 26 pages again?

i wish i knew

[Cam63]

The score is now:

Solaris: 4,000,000,000
Samurai: 0

Well, she did have a headstart on him.

[Jared H.]

The best thing about this election cycle is watching reasonably intelligent people go through Olympic-level moral and mental contortions in order to try to defend the indefensible.

Very entertaining.

Bah, probably not funny enough to be justified. N/M.

[Matt Doc Martin]

D[]/\/\[]D @ Nite/So-tite;7803381']How did this reach 26 pages again?


By people asking silly questions.

[TCJohnson]

A third popular Obama "tip" has to do with Raila Odinga, the Kenyan prime minister and former opposition leader who claimed that Obama was a distant cousin.

The reports surfaced after a political crisis in Kenya in which many international observers believed the vote was stolen from Odinga. As the international community rallied behind the opposition, Obama spoke to Odinga briefly on the telephone.

The media has ignored stories about the relationship between the two men because there's no real evidence that one exists. But the story, which comes in many varieties, suggests that Obama campaigned for Odinga and funneled money to his campaign and that they're close allies. In a particularly resonant twist, the story also subjects Odinga to the same sort of rumor that afflicts Obama: that despite Odinga's professed Christian faith (the Kenyan prime minister is an Anglican), the two men are conspiring to institute Muslim law…in Kenya.

A range of officials have denied almost every detail of the rumor, and the story more or less debunked itself earlier this month when anti-Obama writer Jerome Corsi released an e-mail purporting to be a message from Obama to the Odinga camp.

The problem is that the e-mail clearly was not written by a native English speaker.



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15106_Page3.html

[Drink]

Wait wait wait,

How can Obama be an Anti-Semite AND an Arab? (Not that I'm saying Obama is, but a lot of people seem to think he is).

Because Muslims are Semitic and all. People tend to forget that. :rolleyes:

[Typo Lad]

You can be self-hating, y'know.

[Nick Soapdish]

You can be self-hating, y'know.

See Larry Craig and Ted Haggert.

I'm more bemused by the anti-Semitism charge because of the "evidence" that he favors Palestinians, who are also Semitic.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15106_Page3.html

Isn't this the big story that John McCain is going ape shit over now ? That he wants the LA Times to publish it or give him the information ?

[Red Jack]

Wait wait wait,

How can Obama be an Anti-Semite AND an Arab? (Not that I'm saying Obama is, but a lot of people seem to think he is).

Because Muslims are Semitic and all. People tend to forget that. :rolleyes:

No.

Arabs are semitic. Muslims come in all ethnicities, genders and nationalities. Just like Christians.

[Red Jack]

Well, she did have a headstart on him.

And a grasp on reality.

What's that line from Manhunter/Red Dragon?

[Drink]

No.

Arabs are semitic. Muslims come in all ethnicities, genders and nationalities. Just like Christians.

My mistake.

But still, Arab is one of the things they've been accusing Obama of being. He can't be both Arab and Anti-Semitic without contradicting their own lies.

[Gilda Dent]

Never mind.

[Etta Candy]

You know I hate this to be my first post on here, but anyone who is more qualified and cares for this country is Obama. I have not seen a president with more love since the late John Kennedy! I may be a dumb ole country liberal girl from the sticks, but I know a good man when I seen one I been through Regan, Clinton, George Bush SR and that dumb hick of a son of his and Obama has by far shown what this country needs as a President! McCain is 72 years old ya and if he croaks God Forbid that leaves Palin as a President and as a feminist myself she is not one in the least. She was only picked to run as VP running mate to sway the Clinton voters to his side. She has no qualifications to run a office at this level she has been a governor and that fact scares me McCain might get sick if he is elected and she is in charge we be worse off than Bush!:rolleyes:

[MacQuarrie]

Honest, I'm not trying to be a jerk (it just happens a lot), but... well, how can I put this?

Punctuation is your friend.

[4thHorseman]

These people are apparently unaware of, or unconcerned with, the fact that John McCain, when he was head of the International Republican Institute, gave financial grants to Khalidi's pro-Palestinian research group, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars -- one 1998 grant alone was for $448,873.

I would assume that many McCain supporters will be tying themselves in knots arguing that financial support of Khalidi means nothing compared to being at a party for him.

But it's still a bizarre argument to make.

kdb

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445745,00.html

As much as nobody wants to go to this site (Hannity and Colmes discussing a video about Khalidi), they start mentioning this near the end of the transcript.

I like how they justify it:rolleyes:

[SUPERECWFAN1]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445745,00.html

As much as nobody wants to go to this site (Hannity and Colmes discussing a video about Khalidi), they start mentioning this near the end of the transcript.

Apparently, this never happened:rolleyes:

The fact John McCain gave the money and I saw this on TV. I thought Coulter was gonna vomit in pain. She was seriously reaching "Hey its worse to eat dinner with the guy ...instead of giving half a million dollars !"

Poor Ann...such an evil witch of hell being destroyed on TV.

[Eliseu Gouveia]

You know I hate this to be my first post on here, but anyone who is more qualified and cares for this country is Obama.
I have not seen a president with more love since the late John Kennedy!
I may be a dumb ole country liberal girl from the sticks, but I know a good man when I seen one

I been through Regan, Clinton, George Bush SR and that dumb hick of a son of his and Obama has by far shown what this country needs as a President! McCain is 72 years old ya and if he croaks
God Forbid that leaves Palin as a President and as a feminist myself she is not one in the least.
She was only picked to run as VP running mate to sway the Clinton voters to his side.
She has no qualifications to run a office at this level she has been a governor and that fact scares me McCain might get sick if he is elected and she is in charge we be worse off than Bush!:rolleyes:



Welcome to YABS, Etta, loved seeing you in the WW comic. ^_^

[section 8]

The fact John McCain gave the money and I saw this on TV. I thought Coulter was gonna vomit in pain. She was seriously reaching "Hey its worse to eat dinner with the guy ...instead of giving half a million dollars !"

Poor Ann...such an evil witch of hell being destroyed on TV.

Ann Coulter....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgSBhlw-o9E

[Sabrinaset]

You know I hate this to be my first post on here, but anyone who is more qualified and cares for this country is Obama. I have not seen a president with more love since the late John Kennedy! I may be a dumb ole country liberal girl from the sticks, but I know a good man when I seen one I been through Regan, Clinton, George Bush SR and that dumb hick of a son of his and Obama has by far shown what this country needs as a President! McCain is 72 years old ya and if he croaks God Forbid that leaves Palin as a President and as a feminist myself she is not one in the least. She was only picked to run as VP running mate to sway the Clinton voters to his side. She has no qualifications to run a office at this level she has been a governor and that fact scares me McCain might get sick if he is elected and she is in charge we be worse off than Bush!:rolleyes:

Just out of curiosity ... have you ever heard of Doctors without Borders?

[GozertheGozarian]

Just out of curiosity ... have you ever heard of Doctors without Borders?
Praise to the Flying Spaghetti Monster I wasn't drinking anything.

[Etta Candy]

what is "Doctors without Borders" is that book?

[Tobias March]

Just out of curiosity ... have you ever heard of Doctors without Borders?

Ooooo :smile: