[Chongo]

Originally Posted by tie 

Chongo, I have no idea what you are talking about. Clinton '92? You seem to have some big conspiracy theory in mind. Watch out, the bogeymen are coming!

no conspiracy theories.
Hillary is promising a middle class tax cut, just as Bill did in "92. (Obama as well) That is what got him elected, (that and Ross Perot). If elected, she will also come up with an excuse as to why she can't do it and raise taxes (those who don't remember the past are condemned to repeat it stuff)

[tie]

But you started your post with "targeted tax cuts=tax increases for all," a phrase which applies most clearly not to Clinton but to Bush. Targeted tax cuts for the rich = tax increases for all. (Although in fact, this only holds in the long run, since in the short run, tax cuts don't need to be offset by spending cuts [and with a Republican in office, they never will be]. In the long run, you can bet that we will all be paying for Bush's tax cuts for the rich.)

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by tie 

But you started your post with "targeted tax cuts=tax increases for all," a phrase which applies most clearly not to Clinton but to Bush. Targeted tax cuts for the rich = tax increases for all. (Although in fact, this only holds in the long run, since in the short run, tax cuts don't need to be offset by spending cuts [and with a Republican in office, they never will be]. In the long run, you can bet that we will all be paying for Bush's tax cuts for the rich.)

I'm curious what is the line that you consider "rich?"

My taxes haven't gone up during the Bush administration, and I'm far, far from rich!


As far as "swift boating" predictions: I find it ironic that it's really the Clinton campaign that started "swifting" with the "Obama in costume" photo.

[tie]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom 

My taxes haven't gone up during the Bush administration, and I'm far, far from rich!

Your taxes haven't gone up yet, but the national debt has. So your taxes will go up in the future, or perhaps your savings will be inflated away. You are certainly going to pay for it. There's no free lunch.

As far as "swift boating" predictions: I find it ironic that it's really the Clinton campaign that started "swifting" with the "Obama in costume" photo.

This has certainly been the best swifting yet. McCain having Bill "Barack Mohammed Hussein Obama" Cunningham at his rally then denying any responsibility is another example, but not as good.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by tie 

Your taxes haven't gone up yet, but the national debt has. So your taxes will go up in the future, or perhaps your savings will be inflated away. You are certainly going to pay for it. There's no free lunch.

But, but, but.... Hillary told me I'd get FREE health care and my taxes wouldn't have to get raised. So someone is fudging the truth.

I've enjoyed the way Obama has handled himself so far and I hope he stays above the fray. If he does, whether I agree philosophically down the line with him, I think he's earned my respect and my vote. I think raising the level of dialogue is one of the most important issues in my eyes.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

good morning sunshine!

you asked for info...i gave it...calm down man

Don't let me get to you ironknee.

What makes you think I'm not calm? I'm just sayin', you asked for links and I provided them. I asked for information and you gave me absolutely nothing. BTW, saying "you know it" or "right on man" doesn't constitute information in the traditional sense.

sigh... yes there are many factors but should gender be one of them?

No gender shouldn't be a factor. You've been disagreeing with this premise all along. I wish you agreed.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Prediction for the Republican message: Obama is unpatriotic.

Prediction for the Democrat message: criticism of Obama is racist.

I know, shocking. The Democrats accusing Republicans of being racist.

Here's how it will go down.

Early summer, when it is apparent that Obama-fever is wearing off and he is predicted to lose to McCain by a substantial margin (mid-summer), the "racism" indictments will fly against anyone critiquing Obama's platform.

1. Via mass anonymous email and flyers and push polls: Republicans are racist. It will not focus on McCain because he will have no part of it, but in desperation there will simply be nothing else to do.

2. In public: A subtle, but unmistakable fear campaign will be launched by the Democrats that we could be facing massive race-riots if Obama doesn't win.

It plays into the race card that blacks aren't real Americans and into his foreign name.

There will be more bad press and bogus stories regarding McCain than any other Republican candidate to date. Worse, while George Bush is not running for President, you'll watch this campaign become more about him than McCain or really anything else. All the stops will be pulled. Accusations of geritol use and poor Irish temperament will show that the left aren't as into diversity and tolerance as they claim. The uneducated Que Sera, Sera libs will bite hook, line, and sinker saying things like; "I want change and Obama stands for change." and "He looks good. I want a good looking President." and "like...PC users and Republicans are racist. I like Obama because he's so eloquent" and "I hate Bush/Fox News."

[Shaddim]

My favorite from the Democrats about Obama, "he's so articulate". I heard a gaggle of Dems around the watercooler saying this yesterday. If a Republican said that there'd be blood in the streets.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Prediction for the Democrat message: criticism of Obama is racist.

Probably. And I'm glad you felt my post was so awesome that it inspired you to copy it. I assume that means you also agree with it?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Prediction for the Democrat message: criticism of Obama is racist.

Probably. It's done wonders for Israel, so it might just work for Obama.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There will be more bad press and bogus stories regarding McCain than any other Republican candidate to date.

And, most of it will come from Republicans who would rather see a polarizing Democrat in the White House than a moderate Republican.

[Shaddim]

I'm still not seeing McCain as a classic moderate. Huckabee is a moderate, McCain is much further Left of center, as far as Republicans are concerned.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Don't let me get to you ironknee.

What makes you think I'm not calm? I'm just sayin', you asked for links and I provided them. I asked for information and you gave me absolutely nothing. BTW, saying "you know it" or "right on man" doesn't constitute information in the traditional sense.


No gender shouldn't be a factor. You've been disagreeing with this premise all along. I wish you agreed.

finally you answered the question... it wasn't that hard was it? was it?

there still is hope for you after all !

[subego]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

finally you answered the question... it wasn't that hard was it? was it?

there still is hope for you after all !

ebuddy's probably too classy to mention he answered the question half-way down page two.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If you include; "same region" also then Yes, in this instance they should get equal pay. Hell they're practically twins. Of course they should get equal pay.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There will be more bad press and bogus stories regarding McCain than any other Republican candidate to date. Worse, while George Bush is not running for President, you'll watch this campaign become more about him than McCain or really anything else. All the stops will be pulled. Accusations of geritol use and poor Irish temperament will show that the left aren't as into diversity and tolerance as they claim. The uneducated Que Sera, Sera libs will bite hook, line, and sinker saying things like; "I want change and Obama stands for change." and "He looks good. I want a good looking President." and "like...PC users and Republicans are racist. I like Obama because he's so eloquent" and "I hate Bush/Fox News."

remember bush's attacks on mccain when they were running?

The i hate bush/fox news/rush/PC users/iraq war/mid west hicks/halliburton/abu grade/lies is spot on!

good job ebuddy! what a cute name you have!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm still not seeing McCain as a classic moderate. Huckabee is a moderate, McCain is much further Left of center, as far as Republicans are concerned.

Your opinion is exactly my point.

If not "moderate Republican", what would you label McCain? It can't be denied that he's a Republican, so maybe "Liberal Republican"? That's even more fun for me.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

It's already started for McCain. And the swift boaters are the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us.../21mccain.html

The swift boat thing is much less likely to happen this time, since none of the candidates went to Vietnam for 3 months to get a "war record" because it would help them in politics.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Prediction for the Democrat message: criticism of Obama is racist.

I know, shocking. The Democrats accusing Republicans of being racist.

Here's how it will go down.

Early summer, when it is apparent that Obama-fever is wearing off and he is predicted to lose to McCain by a substantial margin (mid-summer), the "racism" indictments will fly against anyone critiquing Obama's platform.

1. Via mass anonymous email and flyers and push polls: Republicans are racist. It will not focus on McCain because he will have no part of it, but in desperation there will simply be nothing else to do.

2. In public: A subtle, but unmistakable fear campaign will be launched by the Democrats that we could be facing massive race-riots if Obama doesn't win.


There will be more bad press and bogus stories regarding McCain than any other Republican candidate to date. Worse, while George Bush is not running for President, you'll watch this campaign become more about him than McCain or really anything else. All the stops will be pulled. Accusations of geritol use and poor Irish temperament will show that the left aren't as into diversity and tolerance as they claim. The uneducated Que Sera, Sera libs will bite hook, line, and sinker saying things like; "I want change and Obama stands for change." and "He looks good. I want a good looking President." and "like...PC users and Republicans are racist. I like Obama because he's so eloquent" and "I hate Bush/Fox News."

Brilliant analysis. Some of this has already happened to Slick Willy. Obama is unassailable, even by the C in CNN.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Probably. And I'm glad you felt my post was so awesome that it inspired you to copy it. I assume that means you also agree with it?

I copied the format of your post because I liked it. I changed the content because I disagreed with it. Don't flatter yourself.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

remember bush's attacks on mccain when they were running?

No, if you have information I'll take a look. You'll no doubt be shocked when the Dems attempt to make it look like McCain and Bush are bestest buddies. I just ask that it be more entertaining than the fight between Obama and Hillary because I'm not sure I have a whole lot of attention span left for in-party bickering. I'm still trying to pick myself up from the floor after listening to Hillary whine about the media. Damned liberal bias!

The i hate bush/fox news/rush/PC users/iraq war/mid west hicks/halliburton/abu grade/lies is spot on!

The misspellings and poor sentence structure are starting to get to me. Your abu grade in this exercise is an F.

good job ebuddy! what a cute name you have!

Why thank you sweetie.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Your opinion is exactly my point.

If not "moderate Republican", what would you label McCain? It can't be denied that he's a Republican, so maybe "Liberal Republican"? That's even more fun for me.

Well, I see him more as a left-of-center Democrat wearing Republican shoes.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Well, I see him more as a left-of-center Democrat wearing Republican shoes.

Maybe, but those shoes have been handed to him by Republicans.

Just because you don't see him as a Republican, doesn't mean he isn't a Republican. If Republican's are selecting him to be their representative, that makes him a Republican in my books.

[vmarks]

In the US, the party organization does not choose you to be their representative.
You select the party for yourself. You register to run on your own.

Any person eligible (age, citizenship) can put themselves forwards as a candidate for any party, without having to ask permission of that party. Once they are on a ballot, it is not surprising for people registered to the same party to vote for a candidate who has the right party next to the candidate's name.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

In the US, the party organization does not choose you to be their representative.
You select the party for yourself. You register to run on your own.

Any person eligible (age, citizenship) can put themselves forwards as a candidate for any party, without having to ask permission of that party. Once they are on a ballot, it is not surprising for people registered to the same party to vote for a candidate who has the right party next to the candidate's name.

And, what are the Primaries all about then?

[Wiskedjak]

So, apparently the RNC finds Big Mac's obsession and use of Obama's name to be inappropriate.
Republicans decry use of 'Hussein' in Obama's name - CNN.com

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And, what are the Primaries all about then?

For the Presidential race?
Show.
Getting delegates in a row, in order to face up for the real nomination at convention.
None of that has to happen with a party organization's blessing. The candidate chooses to run on his own.

For regular races, a primary is the voters of a party directly choosing who the nominee will be. For a Presidential race, convention and delegates render the primaries indirect.

Here what has happened is that candidates are presuming that the primaries have decided the thing, and so they drop out. That's what has happened in recent years, but is not how it is supposed to happen. What's supposed to happen is that candidates go to convention and the delegates at convention choose the nominee.

That all but one of the candidates have dropped out by the time convention rolls around is just a fact of recent history.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

For a Presidential race, convention and delegates render the primaries indirect.

And, that has nothing to do with how members of the Republican party vote during the primaries?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I copied the format of your post because I liked it. I changed the content because I disagreed with it. Don't flatter yourself.

You disagreed with it? So you don't believe that grass roots Republicans will attack Obama's patriotism with lies and smears while the official campaign distances themselves from it?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

You disagreed with it? So you don't believe that grass roots Republicans will attack Obama's patriotism with lies and smears while the official campaign distances themselves from it?

He's a Muslim. He put his hand on the Koran to be sworn in. He refuses to say the pledge, sing the national anthem, etc. The official campaign will distance itself from these messages.

While it is impossible to control what every freak with a computer and some webspace may do, I think you'll be hard-pressed in connecting this with any "grassroots Republican" movement. After all, Obama will have to weather the above, not sourced from the likes of grassroots Republicans as you know, but from the Clinton campaign.

Furthermore, to claim that Obama is a Muslim would miss the more important story regarding Obama's attendance at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago and the man who pastors the church. Could you imagine a Republican candidate with connections to a church that is "Unashamedly White" and "Unapologetically Christian"? Why not the calls for separation of Church and State? Why not the concern for fascist Christian ideology ruling the day as it would no doubt under a Republican Christian? I'm all for a black value system, I don't see the problem with this, but is it to a degree exclusionary? I don't know for sure. What I do know is that Obama has tactfully declined some invites of Wright to open prayer services at the church and is trying to distance himself from standing out publicly at least to the same degree that McCain is separating himself from "grassroots Republican statements". We should search this out at least as much as we did Romney's religious affiliations. Is this a lie? No. Is it a smear? No. It is politics and it is fair play regardless of how charismatic you appear.

So... I disagree with you.

2. In public: He's against the troops, he wants America to lose the war, he doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin, his wife isn't proud of America, he wants to be friends with America's enemies like Iran.

Some moron may claim that Obama is "against the troops" because it's one of those meaningless platitudes that holds weight not unlike; "Obama stands for change and I want change". This will not be Obama's undoing from the perspective of those on the right, his actual policy on Iraq will be his undoing. During the general, his message of "well I opposed the action" means nothing in context of our presence in Iraq today. Regardless of whether or not he wants America to lose, his policy of withdrawal from Iraq within 16 months is a foregone conclusion. Unless of course you believe those interested in dismantling the feeble infancy of democracy in Iraq are too impatient to wait a little over a year and incapable of preparation. I'd also like to know what he does with the $592 million embassy we're building there. Massive federal hardware sale?

[BRussell]

ebuddy none of what you typed is inconsistent with what I posted. You just added a bunch of other stuff you don't like about him, and said Clinton did it too.

It's as if I posted "2+2=4" and you posted "no it's not, 2+3=5."

I've got news for you ebuddy - what I posted is already happening, right now, and being discussed in other threads here on MacNN. Are you really going to claim that it wasn't Republicans who posted that lie that Buckaroo is repeating, that Obama refuses to salute the flag and wants the national anthem to be "I want to teach the world to sing?"

[vmarks]

How much of it do you suppose is coming from the Clinton campaign?

[BRussell]

No question. Bob Kerrey, when he endorsed Clinton, (falsely) said that Obama had been educated at a madrassa. Drudge claims that the Clinton campaign forwarded them an email of Obama in African garb. I've acknowledged this, I've acknowledged that Democrats will use allegations of racism against Republicans to deflect criticism of Obama even if they aren't race-related. I'd have to be in denial of reality to not acknowledge these things.

What I haven't seen is any Republican acknowledge that Republicans will (and are) sending out mass emails spreading lies about Obama being Muslim, refusing to salute the flag, etc. I wonder if any Republican will acknowledge this? My guess is not. ebuddy outright denies it. vmarks wants to talk about the Clintons. Buckaroo in the other thread refuses to admit that he bought into a lie from a conservative online magazine in the other thread.

What is it with you people?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

ebuddy none of what you typed is inconsistent with what I posted. You just added a bunch of other stuff you don't like about him, and said Clinton did it too.

It's as if I posted "2+2=4" and you posted "no it's not, 2+3=5."

I've got news for you ebuddy - what I posted is already happening, right now, and being discussed in other threads here on MacNN. Are you really going to claim that it wasn't Republicans who posted that lie that Buckaroo is repeating, that Obama refuses to salute the flag and wants the national anthem to be "I want to teach the world to sing?"

• relax
• I'm not saying "Clinton did it too" I'm saying Clinton started it, is easily the source of most of it, and continues to do it. I get tired of seeing 3+2=5, but 2+3≠5.
• Buckaroo may or may not be pleased with the tag: "grassroots Republican", but Buckaroo is not a movement nor representative of one that I know.
• The article I believe you're talking about is written by John Semmens of Semi-News -- A Satirical Look at Recent News @ azconservative.org. Familiar with John Semmens? He's a goof-ball and has other gems like; “Michelle is pretty much the boss,” Obama admitted. “It’s the normal stuff. You know—limiting what I can watch on TV, making me squat to pee, and, the biggie, forcing me to quit smoking.” ... When the audience’s applause died down, the Senator observed that this was “just one more example of my wife making me a better man so I can put an end to partisan bickering, unite this country, and lead Americans to a higher plane of existence."
• Political satire is not a "grassroots Republican" effort. It is humor. (someone not getting a joke is also not a movement)
• IMO, your focus and your views are predictable. You might say the same for me, but I can tell you that just about every political test I've taken has me right down the middle.
• When you ask; "what is it with you people?" you gotta know there are those wondering the same thing about you.

[BRussell]

ebuddy I'm sure you consider yourself to be very fair - I don't know anyone who doesn't - but you still can't bring yourself to acknowledge that Republican political opponents of Obama have spread FUD about his patriotism, religion, flag saluting habits, etc., and will continue to do so in the general election. You can only say that it's really Clinton, that it's a joke, and that it's not a movement. Nothing but defense of the holy sanctity of Our Lady of the Republicans.

I have acknowledged that Clinton has done it. I have acknowledged that Democrats will play the race card. I'll be happy to acknowledge anything that is obviously true. You will not. Combined with Buckaroo refusing to acknowledge the false quote from Obama, vmarks refusing to acknowledge the lies, and Big Mac saying that Democrats are literally evil and should cease to exist, and you may be able to see what I'm seeing, if you're as fair-minded as you claim to be.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

You're not exactly one to talk about refusing to acknowledge a lie, Mr. "b-but maybe it was Christmas Eve in January... he was mistaken...!"

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

ebuddy I'm sure you consider yourself to be very fair - I don't know anyone who doesn't - but you still can't bring yourself to acknowledge that Republican political opponents of Obama have spread FUD about his patriotism, religion, flag saluting habits, etc., and will continue to do so in the general election. You can only say that it's really Clinton, that it's a joke, and that it's not a movement. Nothing but defense of the holy sanctity of Our Lady of the Republicans.

No, I said you'd be hard-pressed into claiming this is a grassroots Republican effort. You still haven't shown me how or why. For one thing, it seems to be a grassroots Clinton effort. It's fitting that you'd make such a prediction when it is right now happening from a (D) and we're not yet to the generals.

I have acknowledged that Clinton has done it. I have acknowledged that Democrats will play the race card. I'll be happy to acknowledge anything that is obviously true. You will not.

Why would you make a prediction about what the Republicans would do later when the Democrats are doing it now? I guess I just find your focus a little confusing, but predictable. When have you initiated a discussion on how Democrats are treating Democrats?

Combined with Buckaroo refusing to acknowledge the false quote from Obama

It was a joke. Whether or not Buckaroo realized it, acknowledges it, or otherwise has nothing to do with my reply. This isn't lying, it's parody. Surely you understand this. Should we be calling all liberally-biased comedians to the carpet? This could be one of those 26-pagers.

vmarks refusing to acknowledge the lies

I think your definition of "smear" has been called into question for its slant, I'm now curious what "lies" you're talking about.

and Big Mac saying that Democrats are literally evil and should cease to exist, and you may be able to see what I'm seeing, if you're as fair-minded as you claim to be.

I'm certainly fair-minded enough to know a bias when I see it. As far as I know, Big Mac is not trying to express some inclusionist attitude. He's not trying to say he is something he clearly is not. I will say that his voice is essentially buried knee-deep in the leftist vitriol you see in this forum. Maybe I just have an underdog complex.

[BRussell]

OK ebuddy, you win. Your refusal to ever criticize any Republican ever has convinced me. They never do anything wrong, no Republicans are behind any of those multitude of lying email smears, it's all Hillary and Democrats. I shouldn't have said that any Republican would ever challenge Obama's patriotism or ever lie about something like saluting the flag or being a Muslim. I'm on board with you now, and although I'll continue to criticize Democrats as I've done consistently in the past, like you I'll never offer a criticism of any Republican ever again. I feel better already.

[vmarks]

Note that I never claimed it ALL came from ClintonInc.

I asked how much BRUSSELL thought was coming from Clinton's campaign.

So, BRussell, when you accuse me, when you claim I refuse to acknowledge something, I can only recommend to you the age-old art of reading comprehension. It will serve you well, but it requires some effort on your part.

For what it's worth, I consider myself reasonably plugged in - I get the local grassroots mailing lists (about four or five of them) - I get the state GOP official mailing lists, I get the 527 mailing lists - And the only place I'm hearing about this nonsense is from Brussell and Clinton.

My local area sources aren't doing this. They aren't talking about lapel pins. They aren't talking about proper flag and national anthem etiquette. They aren't talking about middle names.

Please note that I've said at the end of every post in this thread, that these things are far less important than his troublesome policies.

The grassroots around here agrees. They're talking about the stated positions of Mr. Obama. They're talking about his empty message of 'hope', his contradictory foreign policy (bomb Pakistan, but meet with leaders of Islamic countries!), and they're talking about his failed efforts in the legislative arena.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

OK ebuddy, you win. Your refusal to ever criticize any Republican ever has convinced me. They never do anything wrong, no Republicans are behind any of those multitude of lying email smears, it's all Hillary and Democrats. I shouldn't have said that any Republican would ever challenge Obama's patriotism or ever lie about something like saluting the flag or being a Muslim. I'm on board with you now, and although I'll continue to criticize Democrats as I've done consistently in the past, like you I'll never offer a criticism of any Republican ever again. I feel better already.

This doesn't sound like you.

Are you alright?

[BRussell]

vmarks I'm talking about how, in the "Obama refuses to say the pledge" thread, you addressed it by 1) not acknowledging that the thread was based on a falsehood and 2) instead listing additional reasons why Obama might actually be unpatriotic, and stating that it was a legitimate issue.

It's that inability to criticize - or even acknowledge - falsehoods and false smears if they're attacking one's opponents that I'm talking about here.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

This doesn't sound like you.

Are you alright?

I think my cat must've jumped up on the keyboard.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

vmarks I'm talking about how, in the "Obama refuses to say the pledge" thread, you addressed it by 1) not acknowledging that the thread was based on a falsehood and 2) instead listing additional reasons why Obama might actually be unpatriotic, and stating that it was a legitimate issue.

It's that inability to criticize - or even acknowledge - falsehoods and false smears if they're attacking one's opponents that I'm talking about here.

I have readily called such nonsense with that word - nonsense.
I have already said that the additional reasons were credible while the ones you named were not.
And then I said that it was less important than his worrisome policies.

You could go back and re-read. Your preconceived notion of what I've written is in error.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I have readily called such nonsense with that word - nonsense.
I have already said that the additional reasons were credible while the ones you named were not.
And then I said that it was less important than his worrisome policies.

You could go back and re-read. Your preconceived notion of what I've written is in error.

That's simply not true. You did not acknowledge the lie about him refusing to salute the flag that was the premise of the thread itself. In fact you said there were legitimate concerns about it; the only thing you called nonsense was concern about his middle name.

But I'm talking about acknowledging the massive amounts of lies against Obama that are going out on the internet, saying he doesn't salute the flag, that he's a Muslim, etc., and acknowledging that Republicans might possibly be behind some of them. And I've STILL not seen any of you guys do it, even after repeatedly asking for it. :shrugs:

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

OK ebuddy, you win. Your refusal to ever criticize any Republican ever has convinced me.

You act like you don't know who you're talking to. I've mentioned on numerous occasions problems with Bush and this administration, I've told about the numerous problems with McCain and why I can't bring myself to vote for him at this time. I've even defended Obama and responded to those who've criticized him.

They never do anything wrong, no Republicans are behind any of those multitude of lying email smears, it's all Hillary and Democrats.

I've claimed that it's no wonder Democrats appear to be on a witch-hunt against Republican scandal because Republicans are standing over cauldrons, chanting "toil and trouble", etc...

I shouldn't have said that any Republican would ever challenge Obama's patriotism or ever lie about something like saluting the flag or being a Muslim.

Now you seem to be confused with your own points. I thought you were saying this would be a Republican grassroots effort, but in the above you're saying "any Republican". Maybe if you had worded it that way to begin with I couldn't have argued. I thought it odd that you would point out a potential future grassroots Republican effort when it seems more a present day Democrat effort.

I'm on board with you now, and although I'll continue to criticize Democrats as I've done consistently in the past, like you I'll never offer a criticism of any Republican ever again. I feel better already.

I guess we just misunderstand one another. I don't recall you ever pointing out a problem or flaw with a Democrat.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

... and acknowledging that Republicans might possibly be behind some of them. And I've STILL not seen any of you guys do it, even after repeatedly asking for it. :shrugs:

Again, what's predictable is that while this is an active and open campaign tactic by Clinton, you're claiming that it's possible Republicans may be behind it. There are Republicans and Democrats that will do a great many things, this does not constitute grassroots Republican action. What's next, car accidents are unfortunate?

Talk about blame-shifting and denial. :shrugs:

Originally Posted by BRussell

You did not acknowledge the lie about him refusing to salute the flag that was the premise of the thread itself. In fact you said there were legitimate concerns about it; the only thing you called nonsense was concern about his middle name.

What you claim the thread was about (in error I might add);

Originally Posted by oversoul

And in the last few days, a group of Hillary supporters have organized a "527" group, the same type as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, to get 100 wealthy donors to donate $100,000 each to raise $10 million to promote Hillary and attack Obama as policy- and experience-lite.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

That's simply not true. You did not acknowledge the lie about him refusing to salute the flag that was the premise of the thread itself. In fact you said there were legitimate concerns about it; the only thing you called nonsense was concern about his middle name.

There's video that clearly shows everyone else with hand over heart during the National Anthem, and he is holding his hands in front of his waist.

That's undeniable. There's no lie there. It is a concern for some, who are looking to be concerned.

It is, as I have said repeatedly, less important than Mr. Obama's positions.

Now, quit calling me a liar.

But I'm talking about acknowledging the massive amounts of lies against Obama that are going out on the internet, saying he doesn't salute the flag, that he's a Muslim, etc., and acknowledging that Republicans might possibly be behind some of them. And I've STILL not seen any of you guys do it, even after repeatedly asking for it. :shrugs:

I'm telling you, the massive amounts stuff is imagined. It's not real.
I've got all the local grassroots stuff coming directly to me, and it's just not there.

You acknowledged that some portion of this is coming from ClintonInc. I tell you that none of it is in my local grassroots communications. You respond by casting aspersions on my character.

Sir, you can do better than that.

[Chongo]

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again, what's predictable is that while this is an active and open campaign tactic by Clinton, you're claiming that it's possible Republicans may be behind it. There are Republicans and Democrats that will do a great many things, this does not constitute grassroots Republican action. What's next, car accidents are unfortunate?

Talk about blame-shifting and denial. :shrugs:



What you claim the thread was about (in error I might add);

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You act like you don't know who you're talking to. I've mentioned on numerous occasions problems with Bush and this administration, I've told about the numerous problems with McCain and why I can't bring myself to vote for him at this time. I've even defended Obama and responded to those who've criticized him.


I've claimed that it's no wonder Democrats appear to be on a witch-hunt against Republican scandal because Republicans are standing over cauldrons, chanting "toil and trouble", etc...


Now you seem to be confused with your own points. I thought you were saying this would be a Republican grassroots effort, but in the above you're saying "any Republican". Maybe if you had worded it that way to begin with I couldn't have argued. I thought it odd that you would point out a potential future grassroots Republican effort when it seems more a present day Democrat effort.


I guess we just misunderstand one another. I don't recall you ever pointing out a problem or flaw with a Democrat.

Oh look! Two more posts by ebuddy that still refuse to even acknowledge that any Republican could pass on lies about Obama!

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

There's video that clearly shows everyone else with hand over heart during the National Anthem, and he is holding his hands in front of his waist.

That's undeniable. There's no lie there. It is a concern for some, who are looking to be concerned.

It is, as I have said repeatedly, less important than Mr. Obama's positions.

Now, quit calling me a liar.


I'm telling you, the massive amounts stuff is imagined. It's not real.
I've got all the local grassroots stuff coming directly to me, and it's just not there.

You acknowledged that some portion of this is coming from ClintonInc. I tell you that none of it is in my local grassroots communications. You respond by casting aspersions on my character.

Sir, you can do better than that.

Anyone can forget to put their hand over their heart, as that Bush picture demonstrates. The entire point of the lie is that Obama refuses to do it, that he's made a conscious decision to never salute the flag. That's the meaning of the lying smear - without the lie it's just a run-of-the-mill campaign gaffe. And you've put up another post refusing to acknowledge the lie, and claiming instead that it's true and that it's legitimate.

Just for the record - I've still not seen a single post in this thread or any other from you guys that acknowledges that any Republican could ever spread one of those lies documented at Snopes about Obama being Muslim, refusing to salute the flag, being sworn in on the Koran, etc. They apparently all have come from Clinton, or they're just good funny jokes, or they don't exist.

[vmarks]

You're getting really wound up and really defensive.

I can only tell you I have received no grassroots emails with the smears that you're talking about.

I can only keep telling you that the positions of the candidates are more important, and that Mr. Obama's positions are troublesome.

You're either going to keep calling me a liar, or you'll accept that I'm being honest with you.

But at some point, I hope you step back from the keyboard, breathe a little, and perhaps sample some of the German culture and beverages that are available to you.