OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

[matthewk]

True, but you were talking about people relating to her because of her being "middle class", like them. Didn't we just elect some "regular guy who we could relate to" to the White House? We all see how that worked out

We also already elected a Jimmy Carter. Do you really want another one?

[JRod]

True, but you were talking about people relating to her because of her being "middle class", like them. Didn't we just elect some "regular guy who we could relate to" to the White House? We all see how that worked out

We also already elected a Jimmy Carter. Do you really want another one?

Ya and what about that elitistists like that f*** Jefferson. What a prick. There's nothing worse than a Monticello Elitist.

[Jackdog]

True, but you were talking about people relating to her because of her being "middle class", like them. Didn't we just elect some "regular guy who we could relate to" to the White House? We all see how that worked out

We also already elected a Jimmy Carter. Do you really want another one?

Ya and what about that elitistists like that f*** Jefferson. What a prick. There's nothing worse than a Monticello Elitist.

[F308GTB]

]What am a wrong about? If you consider Palin middle class, then you would have to also lump Obama in that same category. McCain on the other hand, is in a whole different ballpark. He couldn't even remember how many homes he owned. I don't have that problem

Except your man Obama is worth a heck of a lot more than Palin. She's closer financially to the people I know than Obama is. Way closer. The Obama's would be in one of the 5000+ sq. ft. homes around me.

[JackB1]

This, my friends is the definition of a hypocryte.

So you say you can't relate to the Plain clip. Maybe if he were to have thrown in a "GD America" you would have felt more in tune? Seriously Jack, you post these things like they are wrong, but you give Obama the benefit of the doubt on the exact same things.

Please give me some examples of where Palin has stated she will use her religion to make government decisions. You state Obama only extracted the good from the church, and yet you fail to give Palin that same benefit. Why?

You post these things because you are biased towards Obama. Just admit it and quit bringing thiese things up like you are some impartial viewer.

Look, I have to made a choice here. Can you honestly say you like EVERYTHING about McCain & Palin? Of course I didn't like that Reverend Wright crap, but after hearing his explanation, I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. You can't put all Christians in the same boat. Palin's use of religion and the way she mixes it with her politics is not the same as Obama's. At least that's the impression I get.

Look at the last debate. BOTH candidates stretched the truth to a great degree. Are they both liars or exaggerators? Yep. But somehow, you choose to overlook or accept Palin's remarks, while being critical of Biden's. Isn't that hypocritical? There is no way you can choose one candidate over the other without making some concessions. Unfortunately, with the level of corruption in Washington these days, it is impossible for me to pick a candidate that I feel 100% good about. But that's the way it is.

[RobVarak]

My point is simply this, is our country forcing politicians to be religious or pseudo religious because our country made this huge push towards expecting this in the last 20 years. Remember the good ol days when people feared someone would be controlled by the pope. Let's bring those back.

I beg to differ. The history of our political leaders being overtly and devoutly religious extends to the formation of the Republic. There have been exceptions, but almost all Presidents have made a demonstration of their religiosity. The Kennedy issues didn't arise because he was a Christian, but becuase he was Roman Catholic.

I agree that beginning at least with Jimmy Carter, there has been a increased emphasis on the personal conversion stories of the candidates though. A cynic would suggest that it's a reaction to the rise of evangelical Christianity, but it may be a legitimate outgrowth of that demographic trend.

[JRod]

My point is simply this, is our country forcing politicians to be religious or pseudo religious because our country made this huge push towards expecting this in the last 20 years. Remember the good ol days when people feared someone would be controlled by the pope. Let's bring those back.

I beg to differ. The history of our political leaders being overtly and devoutly religious extends to the formation of the Republic. There have been exceptions, but almost all Presidents have made a demonstration of their religiosity. The Kennedy issues didn't arise because he was a Christian, but becuase he was Roman Catholic.

I agree that beginning at least with Jimmy Carter, there has been a increased emphasis on the personal conversion stories of the candidates though. A cynic would suggest that it's a reaction to the rise of evangelical Christianity, but it may be a legitimate outgrowth of that demographic trend.

Maybe we are saying the same thing...

We have foundations in religion but JFK had to prove he wasn't an agent of the Roman Catholic church. Now let's be fair, at the time, catholecism was regared as an immigrant religion. Maybe not in those specific terms but Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Hispanics were predominatnly catholic. So maybe it wasn't as much proving that he wasn't an agent of the pope but that he could be mainstream.

That I don't know. Regardless, JFK did have to prove his independence of religion. That's different from now where you have to prove your alligence to it. By alligence, I mean, could a man/woman be elected if it came out that she was a casual church-goer. An athesist wouldn't probably sniff a primary. But someone not devotely religious and doesn't display a fake sense of spirituality, will not be elected as President.

I think this is directly due to the influence of evangelicals in since Bush. For example, I don't think McCain is overtly religious but he had to make that play to his party.

In other words, I think we are past the days, were elected officials/candidates need to show they can be independent, partly or wholly, from religion, in the same manner JFK did.

[matthewk]

Look at the last debate. BOTH candidates stretched the truth to a great degree. Are they both liars or exaggerators? Yep. But somehow, you choose to overlook or accept Palin's remarks, while being critical of Biden's. Isn't that hypocritical?

Did you read my recent posts? I said I was furstrated about how she duid not answer the troop level question. I stated that I did not like ner repeated mentions of "McCain the maverick".

In fact, here is an exact quote from me on the debate:
"Both had factual errors or made stretches, but with Biden's 30+ years in Washington you'd think he would have been better at it. As it stood, I think it was a draw as far as factual accuracy goes."

Maybe you should read what I wrote before you go accusing me of sh*t.

[JackB1]

Look at the last debate. BOTH candidates stretched the truth to a great degree. Are they both liars or exaggerators? Yep. But somehow, you choose to overlook or accept Palin's remarks, while being critical of Biden's. Isn't that hypocritical?

Did you read my recent posts? I said I was furstrated about how she duid not answer the troop level question. I stated that I did not like ner repeated mentions of "McCain the maverick".

In fact, here is an exact quote from me on the debate:
"Both had factual errors or made stretches, but with Biden's 30+ years in Washington you'd think he would have been better at it. As it stood, I think it was a draw as far as factual accuracy goes."

Maybe you should read what I wrote before you go accusing me of sh*t.

I was giving a hypothetical . You are taking me too literally again.

You proved my point exactly. Just because you disagree with some things about your candidate doesn't make you a hypocrite for supporting them. Example: McCain supports embryonic stem cell research. This may be against your moral principles. But you still are voting for him. Does this make you a hypocrite?

Matt, I don't understand why you are so determined to attempt to refute each and every comment I make here. We clearly have a huge communication problem and you never seem to understand my meaning.
Wouldn't it be easier on both of us to just let it go sometimes? You think I'm a hypocrite...great. Let's move on. Why don't you try discussing the subject matter, instead of trying to cut me down constantly?

[Jared]

Man Rob, those articles are a bunch of "the New York Times doesn't see things the way we see them, so we'll whine". In the Vodkapundit post, they try to say that the NYT is contradicting itself to say that Ayers and Obama weren't close because they were on six board meetings together in the mid-90s. Really? Where's the logic in that?

The JustOneMinute article pushes a theory that Ayers and Obama were associated in 1988...except the poster has no evidence supporting this claim at all; simply conjecture.

Stanley Kurtz' whines that since the Times isn't giving major play to people looking to uncover "the true nature of their relationship", they aren't being fair. Or, maybe those people (Kurtz) are wrong?

And then it seems like everyone is linking to the Global Labor blog; who completely discounts eyewitness reports regarding his selection to the board; and furthermore ignores the possibility that Ayers delegated the job of selecting the board to someone else (Leff).

In short, it's all a bunch of desperate, long winded exaggerating trying to make something seem bigger than it is. And it's especially important now, since the McCain camp sees the polls and is getting Palin to say that Obama's "palling around with terrorists". It's the same dirty, dishonest politics that has been the Republican calling card these last eight years.

***

And again, for all the whining about Ayers and Obama, where is the whining about McCain and G Gordon Liddy (someone who McCain has said he's proud of), the guy who plotted to firebomb the Brookings Institute, kidnap anti-war protestors, and masterminded the Watergate break-in. So is palling with wanna-be conservative terrorists OK?

[greggsand]

Yeah, Palin was in socal today talking about obama hanging with domestic terrorist. Nice to see the old scare tactics are back for the GOP... time to dig out the ol' obama in a turban pic!

[Jackdog]

***

And again, for all the whining about Ayers and Obama, where is the whining about McCain and G Gordon Liddy (someone who McCain has said he's proud of), the guy who plotted to firebomb the Brookings Institute, kidnap anti-war protestors, and masterminded the Watergate break-in. So is palling with wanna-be conservative terrorists OK?

Fu*k all that. It's the past. Talk to me about the future and Obama working with Penny Pritzker. Please read these links:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofar ... 89159.html

http://loanworkout.org/2008/03/is-obama ... the-banks/

http://loanworkout.org/2008/03/obama-penny-pritzker/


then tell me your cool with her advising the man you want to be President.

[matthewk]

Look at the last debate. BOTH candidates stretched the truth to a great degree. Are they both liars or exaggerators? Yep. But somehow, you choose to overlook or accept Palin's remarks, while being critical of Biden's. Isn't that hypocritical?

Did you read my recent posts? I said I was furstrated about how she duid not answer the troop level question. I stated that I did not like ner repeated mentions of "McCain the maverick".

In fact, here is an exact quote from me on the debate:
"Both had factual errors or made stretches, but with Biden's 30+ years in Washington you'd think he would have been better at it. As it stood, I think it was a draw as far as factual accuracy goes."

Maybe you should read what I wrote before you go accusing me of sh*t.

I was giving a hypothetical . You are taking me too literally again.

You proved my point exactly. Just because you disagree with some things about your candidate doesn't make you a hypocrite for supporting them. Example: McCain supports embryonic stem cell research. This may be against your moral principles. But you still are voting for him. Does this make you a hypocrite?

Matt, I don't understand why you are so determined to attempt to refute each and every comment I make here. We clearly have a huge communication problem and you never seem to understand my meaning.
Wouldn't it be easier on both of us to just let it go sometimes? You think I'm a hypocrite...great. Let's move on. Why don't you try discussing the subject matter, instead of trying to cut me down constantly?

How is making a false accusation about my hypothetical? I feel like I'm in Bizzarro world every time I have an exchange with you.

I don't even have a clue as to what your point even is. The reason I say the Palin religion thing is being hypocrytical of you is because you are taking a nearly identical issue and reacting to it two completely different ways just because one is Palin and one is Obama. Disagreeing on a issue your preferred candidate has is not being hypocrytical. Having two differeent responses to an issue based on seemingly nothing else than who it is coming from is.

[Jared]

then tell me your cool with her advising the man you want to be President.

First, the campaign finance chair does any policy advising...she just handles the campaign's money.

As for her, her family owned a failed bank that did loan subprime loans. However, the Pritzker's claimed that it failed due to faulty accounting, sued Ernst & Young, and got a settlement out of it. Information from the Obama campaign below:

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factch ... post_4.php

[RobVarak]

So is palling with wanna-be conservative terrorists OK?

It's not just the fact that he and Ayers have a relationship. It's two important things in addition to that.

First is the fact that he has done everything he can to obfuscate the extent of it. His glib dismissals are obviously lies, and where there are lies there are generally reasons to lie.

Secondly, as Green says, nobody credible thinks that he shares Ayers' views about violence and terrorism. But the extent to which he shares (or shared) Ayers educational philosophy and the sociology and economic philosophy underpinning it is a valid question.

Even in his allegedly de-fanged incarnation, Ayers is not exactly a mainstream thinker or someone who's views would be palatable to many Americans. Richie Daley and a bunch of Ayers' Hyde Park mafia friends swearing on a stack of bibles that Ayers is a great guy doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.

What irks me is that Obama wants the patina of earnest activism that is attached to his community organizing days or his Annenberg Trust work without any meaningful examination of the groups and people with whom he worked. Clearly he needs to protect his non-threatening centrist image, and he may be able to do that if he can keep singing and dancing around any meaningful investigation of his Chicago days.

It's amazing that people are going through Palin's garbage for every receipt and major media enterprises are calling for her to turn over medical records about the birth of her own children and yet we're all supposed to swallow Obama's story whole from his autobiography and the testimony of friends and allies despite the presence of contradictory documentation.

Anyone who deins to inquire into Obama's pre-legislature past is met with howls of fomenting "guilt by association" and stern cries of "swiftboating" from his campaign mouthpieces. If, as his defenders claim, the presence of Republicans and other moderates on the board scrubbed the endeavor clean of Ayers' influence, then go ahead and prove it.

Admit the real extent of his relationship with Ayers and discuss the extent to which he agrees with him on issues of public policy. We know Obama renounces Ayers' terrorist past, but what of the his philosophies of race and class which are central to his educational philosophy. We also know that given Obama's praising of Ayers' academic work he can't pull a Rev. Wright and claim not to know the details of Ayers' philosophy.

[greggsand]

So is palling with wanna-be conservative terrorists OK?

It's not just the fact that he and Ayers have a relationship. It's two important things in addition to that.

First is the fact that he has done everything he can to obfuscate the extent of it. His glib dismissals are obviously lies, and where there are lies there are generally reasons to lie.

Secondly, as Green says, nobody credible thinks that he shares Ayers' views about violence and terrorism. But the extent to which he shares (or shared) Ayers educational philosophy and the sociology and economic philosophy underpinning it is a valid question.

Even in his allegedly de-fanged incarnation, Ayers is not exactly a mainstream thinker or someone who's views would be palatable to many Americans. Richie Daley and a bunch of Ayers' Hyde Park mafia friends swearing on a stack of bibles that Ayers is a great guy doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.

What irks me is that Obama wants the patina of earnest activism that is attached to his community organizing days or his Annenberg Trust work without any meaningful examination of the groups and people with whom he worked. Clearly he needs to protect his non-threatening centrist image, and he may be able to do that if he can keep singing and dancing around any meaningful investigation of his Chicago days.

It's amazing that people are going through Palin's garbage for every receipt and major media enterprises are calling for her to turn over medical records about the birth of her own children and yet we're all supposed to swallow Obama's story whole from his autobiography and the testimony of friends and allies despite the presence of contradictory documentation.

Anyone who deins to inquire into Obama's pre-legislature past is met with howls of fomenting "guilt by association" and stern cries of "swiftboating" from his campaign mouthpieces. If, as his defenders claim, the presence of Republicans and other moderates on the board scrubbed the endeavor clean of Ayers' influence, then go ahead and prove it.

Admit the real extent of his relationship with Ayers and discuss the extent to which he agrees with him on issues of public policy. We know Obama renounces Ayers' terrorist past, but what of the his philosophies of race and class which are central to his educational philosophy. We also know that given Obama's praising of Ayers' academic work he can't pull a Rev. Wright and claim not to know the details of Ayers' philosophy.

You've put more (well worded) thought into this than the GOP has. Their only message is paint obama as a covert terrorist. once the last debate is over, it's gonna get even worse... to hear palin talk about it today, you'd think obama is walking around with C4 strapped to his chest.

[FatPitcher]

You've put more (well worded) thought into this than the GOP has. Their only message is paint obama as a covert terrorist. once the last debate is over, it's gonna get even worse... to hear palin talk about it today, you'd think obama is walking around with C4 strapped to his chest.

He is.

We've also got the reincarnation of Hitler in office right now, except the new one isn't smart enough to put two words together.

His fraternal twin is running for President this year with a backwoods hick who gets her daily news briefings and demon protection from Kenyan witch hunters.

Forty-six percent of America is racist against half-black sons of God.

Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House.

All of our worst nightmares are true.

[Jackdog]

Secondly, as Green says, nobody credible thinks that he shares Ayers' views about violence and terrorism. But the extent to which he shares (or shared) Ayers educational philosophy and the sociology and economic philosophy underpinning it is a valid question.


What irks me is that Obama wants the patina of earnest activism that is attached to his community organizing days or his Annenberg Trust work without any meaningful examination of the groups and people with whom he worked. Clearly he needs to protect his non-threatening centrist image, and he may be able to do that if he can keep singing and dancing around any meaningful investigation of his Chicago days.

It's amazing that people are going through Palin's garbage for every receipt and major media enterprises are calling for her to turn over medical records about the birth of her own children and yet we're all supposed to swallow Obama's story whole from his autobiography and the testimony of friends and allies despite the presence of contradictory documentation.

Anyone who deins to inquire into Obama's pre-legislature past is met with howls of fomenting "guilt by association" and stern cries of "swiftboating" from his campaign mouthpieces. If, as his defenders claim, the presence of Republicans and other moderates on the board scrubbed the endeavor clean of Ayers' influence, then go ahead and prove it.

Admit the real extent of his relationship with Ayers and discuss the extent to which he agrees with him on issues of public policy. We know Obama renounces Ayers' terrorist past, but what of the his philosophies of race and class which are central to his educational philosophy. We also know that given Obama's praising of Ayers' academic work he can't pull a Rev. Wright and claim not to know the details of Ayers' philosophy.

Good points Rob. I don't believe for a second Obama supported Ayers terrorist past. I do have questions about his relationships with so many nut cases and criminals. I also agree with you on Palin. If she had 1/4 of the associations in her past that Obama had she would have been pulled from the ticket the first week.

[Jackdog]

First, the campaign finance chair does any policy advising...she just handles the campaign's money.

As for her, her family owned a failed bank that did loan subprime loans. However, the Pritzker's claimed that it failed due to faulty accounting, sued Ernst & Young, and got a settlement out of it. Information from the Obama campaign below:

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factch ... post_4.php

Thank God for Factcheck huh? Thanks for the response. I'll have many more questions for you in the coming weeks.

[Jackdog]

He is.

We've also got the reincarnation of Hitler in office right now, except the new one isn't smart enough to put two words together.

His fraternal twin is running for President this year with a backwoods hick who gets her daily news briefings and demon protection from Kenyan witch hunters.

Forty-six percent of America is racist against half-black sons of God.

Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House.

All of our worst nightmares are true.

[Jackdog]

Sorry, but I can't relate to stuff like this:

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iwkb9_zB2Pg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I can't relate to child abuse.

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pAlrSRVdKZY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Jackdog]

You've put more (well worded) thought into this than the GOP has. Their only message is paint obama as a covert terrorist. once the last debate is over, it's gonna get even worse... to hear palin talk about it today, you'd think obama is walking around with C4 strapped to his chest.

You got it wrong. To hear Palin talk you'd think Obama pal's around with terrorists who targeted their own country. What a stretch!

[Jared]

First is the fact that he has done everything he can to obfuscate the extent of it. His glib dismissals are obviously lies, and where there are lies there are generally reasons to lie.

Well, they are what you think are lies. I'm looking at the few quotes that I can find by Obama on Ayers, and (from what I've seen) there are no lies there. They've served on a board together over a decade ago, they live in the same neighborhood. They're probably considered lies if you take all of these "connections" served up by right-wing blogs as truth. But so far, they're not.

Secondly, as Green says, nobody credible thinks that he shares Ayers' views about violence and terrorism. But the extent to which he shares (or shared) Ayers educational philosophy and the sociology and economic philosophy underpinning it is a valid question.

I think that is a fine question. A great question. It would be great if someone asked him about this, as it's policy, and it is very relevant to know what his educational views are. However, that's not what the McCain campaign is doing. Instead, they're impugning that he must hold some of Ayers more heinous views because he knew Ayers. Or saying that he "pals with terrorists".

And again, to bring the question back to Liddy. McCain has gone on his show, <b>praised him</b>, someone who plotted to commit domestic acts of terrorism. There is more of a connection between McCain and Liddy than Obama and Ayers. By those standards, there should be tens of thousands of words written on blog posts about Liddy by those complaining about Ayers.

Or they should be screaming about how Palin's husband was a member of a political party that pushed for a vote on secession from the United States, founded and led by someone who hated America.

But they won't, because it's standard hypocrisy to push a "character" question. There's no coincidence that these claims are being pushed now when McCain is at his lowest points in the polls. He knows he'll lose on issues. But he might be able to win if he paints Obama as an unsafe, radical outsider who thinks

And finally, this is a standard distraction ploy. McCain loses on the issues. McCain wins if he paints Obama as an unsafe, outsider who isn't a true American and who pals with terrorist.

[Jared]

First, the campaign finance chair does any policy advising...she just handles the campaign's money.

As for her, her family owned a failed bank that did loan subprime loans. However, the Pritzker's claimed that it failed due to faulty accounting, sued Ernst & Young, and got a settlement out of it. Information from the Obama campaign below:

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factch ... post_4.php

Thank God for Factcheck huh? Thanks for the response. I'll have many more questions for you in the coming weeks.

Ha...honestly, your post on her is the very first I've heard of her, so I didn't know much. For all I know, the fact check could be completely wrong, but it seems like they're correct on the main points.

[Jackdog]

Stay classy Ohio.

Watch the first 4 segments. Pay attention to the volunteer driver at the end of the "Early Voting: Ethical And Legal Concerns" segment. She is telling the uniformed homeless voters who to vote for. That's a no no. Chicago Politics have found their way to Ohio.

http://www.palestra.net/videos/play/16625

Hurry down for one week only. No ID required and no incriminating questions asked. Register and vote on the same day. Remember, this is for one week only. Vote early and vote often. We have buses running statewide all week. Republicans need not apply.

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZKXPhPrd_As&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

Thug thizzle.