[xi_hyperon]

What do you mean, "you people"?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

His comment was DIRECTLY compared to racial slurs, that's hardly a knee jerk. I explained where McCain was coming from with the statement, and it makes perfect sense.

Seriously, wtf is wrong with "you people"?

You would do yourself a favour and actually read what people wrote. Yes, it was compared to his use of a racist term, but, in the same post, it was said he used the term to belittle. No one- NO ONE, cried racism until you.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

His comment was DIRECTLY compared to racial slurs, that's hardly a knee jerk. I explained where McCain was coming from with the statement, and it makes perfect sense.

Seriously, wtf is wrong with "you people"?

Actually, he compared it to terms intended to belittle. His example of a belittling term was McCain's use of "gooks". It's obvious that you only saw "gooks" and jumped to an assumption without fully reading the post.

(oops, Paco beat me to it by a whole 11 minutes!)

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Defend WHAT exactly?

Obama's support for an unrepentant terrorist.

The right-wing wacko mantras that Obama "pals around with terrorists" and is a "terrorist sympathizer"?? Give me a break. Those lies are so far fetched and ridiculous they don't deserve consideration.

Your unsupported, and unsupportable opinion is noted.

It's been repeated over and over and over again - Obama has PUBLICLY stated that he doesn't condone or support what Ayers did 40 YEARS AGO, when Obama was only 8 years old.

I don't support or condone what Jeffrey Dahmer did back when I was younger. If Dahmer was still alive, got off on a technicality, stated he doesn't feel bad about eating the flesh of his innocent victims and I did the following:

Accepted an invitation from him to attend a party at his house.
Accepted work from him that benefitted me financially and politically.
Praised his intellect in regards to subject matter he was interested in.
Invited him to appear with me at public events.
Exchanged e-mail with him and talked to him socially.

Would I or wouldn't I be a cannibal mass murdering sympathizer?

There is another example which could be used and seal the deal and show exactly how your simplistic rebutal fails, but I'm not going to invoke Godwin's Law.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

You would do yourself a favour and actually read what people wrote. Yes, it was compared to his use of a racist term, but, in the same post, it was said he used the term to belittle. No one- NO ONE, cried racism until you.

Racist terms aren't used to belittle?

Let's see, his use of "that one" was compared to a racial slur, but *I* was the one to first bring up racism? That's your logic?

Again, I say, WTF is wrong with "you people"?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Actually, he compared it to terms intended to belittle. His example of a belittling term was McCain's use of "gooks". It's obvious that you only saw "gooks" and jumped to an assumption without fully reading the post.

(oops, Paco beat me to it by a whole 11 minutes!)

Same thing with you, is it congenital?

[Jawbone54]

I voted neither.

Obama came off as a smug and shifty jerk. Why did he keep smirking? Also, the man sounds more and more like an all-out socialist (who would've never been able to run for President in the previous millennium).

McCain just cannot come off as personable, and I'm not sure that he is connecting with the voters that he needs to. He could've hit a few home runs in the debate, but he just has a horrible personality.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Same thing with you, is it congenital?

wow. you have an amazing ability to hear only what you want to hear, regardless of the words being used. It would be impressive if it wasn't so pathetic.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Why did he keep smirking?

Because if you don't you come off looking pissed.

[Jawbone54]

Also, does anyone notice that Obama sounds like a constantly-rebuffering streaming video when he isn't reading from a teleprompter?

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Because if you don't you come off looking pissed.

Solemn would've worked well.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Also, does anyone notice that Obama sounds like a constantly-rebuffering streaming video when he isn't reading from a teleprompter?

That's pretty good.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

wow. you have an amazing ability to hear only what you want to hear, regardless of the words being used. It would be impressive if it wasn't so pathetic.

Keep the spin action going, I could use "you guys" next time we do laundry.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Solemn would've worked well.

Not a chance anyone would interpret that way.
Bottom line is, you need to look personable and friendly (particularly given the format). You didn't like it, no big deal. But you have to realize your opinion of him plays a factor here too.

---

On an off note, I was a little surprised at how... immobile McCain is. Last night reminded me of how old he is. Also, while this is inconsequential, him moving around while Obama was speaking seemed unconventional. He didn't seem to enjoy sitting much, either.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

His comment was DIRECTLY compared to racial slurs, that's hardly a knee jerk. I explained where McCain was coming from with the statement, and it makes perfect sense.

Seriously, wtf is wrong with "you people"?

When I first read that, I immediately thought of "Anger Management."

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

On an off note, I was a little surprised at how... immobile McCain is. Last night reminded me of how old he is. Also, while this is inconsequential, him moving around while Obama was speaking seemed unconventional. He didn't seem to enjoy sitting much, either.

I strongly agree here, it seems the campaign is really catching up with him. It reminded me of the VP debate in 1992, Perot's running mate Admiral Stockdale couldn't stand still either, he constantly paced back and forth. However, both had been POWs for many years and spent that time under extreme circumstances. I can only imagine how much of a toll that takes on a person's body for the rest of their life.

[Wiskedjak]

I assume his stiffness is a result of his age catching up with his Vietnam injuries?

[Rumor]

Probably. Who knows the kind of **** he was subjected to while imprisoned.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Not a chance anyone would interpret that way.
Bottom line is, you need to look personable and friendly (particularly given the format). You didn't like it, no big deal. But you have to realize your opinion of him plays a factor here too.

Of course my bias plays a role in my irritation with his smirking, but I do think he came off as "smug" rather than "assured," even from a less biased perspective.

On an off note, I was a little surprised at how... immobile McCain is. Last night reminded me of how old he is. Also, while this is inconsequential, him moving around while Obama was speaking seemed unconventional. He didn't seem to enjoy sitting much, either.

It was brutal, wasn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, someone, but wouldn't he be the oldest President in the nation's history if elected?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I strongly agree here, it seems the campaign is really catching up with him. It reminded me of the VP debate in 1992, Perot's running mate Admiral Stockdale couldn't stand still either, he constantly paced back and forth. However, both had been POWs for many years and spent that time under extreme circumstances. I can only imagine how much of a toll that takes on a person's body for the rest of their life.

I was on my way home from work, listening to the debate on the radio before I saw the two. Every time McCain spoke, I cringed a bit. He just sounded archaic in comparison to Obama's healthy, energetic (albeit choppy) delivery.

I thought it might be better when I could actually see him, but it was even worse.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I assume his stiffness is a result of his age catching up with his Vietnam injuries?

Exactly. He's actually only a few years younger than my youngest grandpa, who can barely get around for longer than four or five hours without a nap. I still think Romney or Huckabee would've been a better choice for the GOP.

The war injuries just exaggerate the problem.

[EDIT] That being said, I still believe McCain to be a more capable and safer choice for President than Barack Obama. The man still has my vote.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Probably. Who knows the kind of **** he was subjected to while imprisoned.

Apparently, he wasn't tortured at all.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Apparently, he wasn't tortured at all.

I hope you do not think I was implying that he wasn't tortured...

[MindFad]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Apparently, he wasn't tortured at all.

At least he said he'd vote for McCain!

That being said, I still believe McCain to be a more capable and safer choice for President than Barack Obama. The man still has my vote.

Yes, this seems to be the new FUD of the week, since John's got not much else left in these last weeks. Create a mystery about his opponent, instill this idea that an Obama vote is "unsafe," or that somehow a McCain vote is "safer." How people arrive at this is beyond me—I'm not even entirely sure what people mean—but personally, John doesn't seem to have much else left to sell.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

I hope you do not think I was implying that he wasn't tortured...

Nooooooooo, no...

I totally understood what you were saying. I didn't think you were being facetious.

That video just came to mind when you brought up his torture. The eye roll was directed at McCain's captor and the journalists who thought it would be a great idea to interview him.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by MindFad 

Yes, this seems to be the new FUD of the week, since John's got not much else left in these last weeks. Create a mystery about his opponent, instill this idea that an Obama vote is "unsafe," or that somehow a McCain vote is "safer." How people arrive at this is beyond me—I'm not even entirely sure what people mean—but personally, John doesn't seem to have much else left to sell.

I've felt that way about Obama before he beat out Hillary.

With such a vague (and largely non-existent) history to examine, I have no idea what kind of President the man would be. I'm not even sure he knows who he is.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Of course my bias plays a role in my irritation with his smirking, but I do think he came off as "smug" rather than "assured," even from a less biased perspective.

Maybe. Can't say I've heard anywhere else yet, let alone from the more moderate members.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

It was brutal, wasn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, someone, but wouldn't he be the oldest President in the nation's history if elected?

Don't know. Wasn't Dole trying for that honor back in '96?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I strongly agree here, it seems the campaign is really catching up with him. I can only imagine how much of a toll that takes on a person's body for the rest of their life.

His microphone grip made me think of the fact that he was tortured. Really, it's a shame he didn't get further 8 years ago. He feels far too 'spent' now.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Obama's support for an unrepentant terrorist.



Your unsupported, and unsupportable opinion is noted.



I don't support or condone what Jeffrey Dahmer did back when I was younger. If Dahmer was still alive, got off on a technicality, stated he doesn't feel bad about eating the flesh of his innocent victims and I did the following:

Accepted an invitation from him to attend a party at his house.
Accepted work from him that benefitted me financially and politically.
Praised his intellect in regards to subject matter he was interested in.
Invited him to appear with me at public events.
Exchanged e-mail with him and talked to him socially.

Would I or wouldn't I be a cannibal mass murdering sympathizer?

There is another example which could be used and seal the deal and show exactly how your simplistic rebutal fails, but I'm not going to invoke Godwin's Law.

Your "facts" and comparisons are so out of whack it's almost impossible to respond to them but I will anyway.

1) Ayers did what he did at a time when many Americans were protesting (both peacefully and violently) against the Vietnam war. These people had a VERY strong conviction that what the government was doing was WRONG. I don't condone or support violence to solve disagreements but I understand why people like Ayers resorted to that type of protest. Thus, comparing Ayers to Dahmer or abortion clinic bombers or murderers is NOT a valid, fair, or logical comparison.

2) Ayers has stated that when he said "I wish we did more" he was referring to doing more to protest the war, not that he wished they did more bombing.

3) There is NO evidence that a bomb planted by Ayers ever resulted in the death of an innocent bystander.

4) Obama did NOT accept an invitation "from him" [Ayers]. He accepted an invitation from Palmer.

5) At the time Obama sat on the board of these organizations with Ayers, Ayers was, for all intents and purposes, an educator - not a terrorist. His activities 40 years ago have no bearing on his activites today unless you can provide some evidence that Ayers is still involved in plotting violence against the government.

6) Praising someone's "intellect" on a matter that person is considered an expert in does not demonstrate support of the activites that person was involved in 40 years ago. We've been through this.

7) Provide some evidence for your allegation that Obama EVER invited Ayers to appear with him. You can't.

8) Exchanging emails with someone currently involved in politics and education in the city where you live and work is not evidence that you support the actions of said person 40 years ago.

Again, right-wing wackos are the ONLY people who seem to think that NO ONE should ever talk, work, or socialize with Ayers because of what he did, in protest of a war MANY didn't agree with, 40 years ago.

Some interesting tidbits from Roland Martin at CNN.com:

Palin has been hammering home the point on the campaign trail that Obama and Ayers were friends, "palling around" the Windy City, even though the Weather Underground committed these crimes when Obama was just a child. And never mind the fact that Ayers and Obama were involved in a multimillion-dollar education grant that was funded by a right-wing Republican, media magnate Walter Annenberg. Do you hear any of them castigating this late Republican pillar?

The McCain camp, along with their right-wing media comrades, want to convince you that Obama should not have decided to serve with Ayers, who was named the Citizen of the Year in Chicago in 1987 for his education work, and who is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Now, if someone was seen as an acceptable figure by business, political and education figures, many of whom support both Democrats and Republicans, should Obama be faulted for sitting on a board with the guy?

So, let's use that same logic and apply it to McCain.

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., a Democrat from Chicago who serves as one of the national co-chairs for Obama, told me on The Tom Joyner Morning Show that if we are to use the association tag as evidence of a candidate being unfit for president, what about McCain serving and working alongside people with virulent bigoted pasts like Sens. Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd?

Do we have evidence that these individuals committed specific acts against African-Americans during Jim Crow? No. But we do know that their hateful words, and willingness to uphold laws that were absolutely anti-American, did not represent the best of this nation.

Thurmond ran for president as a Dixiecrat in 1948 with a platform of maintaining segregation. Based on Helms' policies, he didn't see blacks as full Americans.

Bombing the Pentagon is horrible and indefensible. But declaring yourself a patriot while you speak such hateful and venomous words against your own countrymen, who just happen to be black, and then trying to oppress them, is just as indefensible.

So, did McCain work with them? Did he not speak with them? Should McCain have declared that he would not work alongside these men because of their past? Should the self-described maverick who believes in integrity and character have taken the honorable stance of resigning from the Senate to protest these hateful characters serving in the U.S. Senate?

No. And this is why this association argument is so weak and impotent.

For goodness' sakes, Byrd was once a member of the Ku Klux Klan, a domestic terrorist organization!

Now, if Ayers was involved in these despicable acts today -- or Byrd and his late Senate colleagues -- then it is fair game.

But no candidate should have to be held responsible for the actions of someone else that took place years ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/...all/index.html

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Maybe. Can't say I've heard anywhere else yet, let alone from the more moderate members.

We have moderate members?

Don't know. Wasn't Dole trying for that honor back in '96?

But didn't win. N/A

His microphone grip made me think of the fact that he was tortured. Really, it's a shame he didn't get further 8 years ago. He feels far too 'spent' now.

I wonder how many people would withhold a vote on the grounds that he's "old?" I wish a major network/organization would come out with a plainly-stated poll like that.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I wonder how many people would withhold a vote on the grounds that he's "old?" I wish a major network/organization would come out with a plainly-stated poll like that.

It's certainly a valid concern. I think it's part of the reason the Palin pick seems so ridiculous.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I wonder how many people would withhold a vote on the grounds that he's "old?" I wish a major network/organization would come out with a plainly-stated poll like that.

I know my 83 year old grandfather thinks McCain is to old to be president, and he's a war vet too.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I know my 83 year old grandfather thinks McCain is to old to be president, and he's a war vet too.

My WWII vet grandfather has said something similar about McCain's age, but he also said, "That Obama fellow scares me to death! If he gets in, I'm worried about this country."

With a lot of older people, you can chalk that sentiment up to some hidden racism (like my great aunt, a lifelong Dem who won't vote for Obama because of his race), but my grandfather is the least racist person I've ever met. The church he pastored for 20 years was about 80% black.

Yes, that strays a little off topic, but I wanted to brag on my grandpa a bit.

[James L]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I wonder how many people would withhold a vote on the grounds that he's "old?" I wish a major network/organization would come out with a plainly-stated poll like that.

Hey JB,

I've avoided commenting in these threads as it's not my election, but this question has come up in discussion with friends before and I'm curious.

For the insane right wing zealots who have posted on this forum like crazy over the last few weeks (yes, there are left wing zealots too) relax... this is a serious question and not a partisan attack.

Senator McCain turned 72 on August 29th of this year. If he wins, his term as president would be from January 20th 2009 - January 20th 2013 if I understand your political system correctly. At the end of his term he would be around 76.5 years old.

The CIA World Fact Book says the life expectancy for males is 75.29 years old in the US, which means statistically (which we all know isn't the be all and end all) there is a not insignificant chance McCain could die while in office.

He also has a history with a form of skin cancer that is fatal in 25-30% of those diagnosed (I'd have to dig into my textbooks for the actual stats).

Sarah Palin has appeared to many to be less then capable of being president should McCain pass away while in office... which there is a greater chance of happening in this election than in many others.

So my question is this:

Is this enough to sway a Republican's vote? Does this make anyone feel like they should base their vote not on McCain versus Obama, but on Palin versus Obama?

Cheers!

[sek929]

Originally Posted by James L 

Is this enough to sway a Republican's vote? Does this make anyone feel like they should base their vote not on McCain versus Obama, but on Palin versus Obama?

Cheers!

Having no strong convictions about either candidate I can tell you, with no hint of facetiousness, that the possibility of Palin being president completely removed any chance of me voting for McCain.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Having no strong convictions about either candidate I can tell you, with no hint of facetiousness, that the possibility of Palin being president completely removed any chance of me voting for McCain.

I was leaning mildly in Obama's direction pre-convention, but I figured the VP picks would pretty much tell me who I was voting for.

I didn't expect it to be such a decisive vote.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I know my 83 year old grandfather thinks McCain is to old to be president, and he's a war vet too.

I'll admit his age is a bit of a concern to me. Even if he doesn't die in office, who's to say he won't go bat-**** insane and continue leading the country for months or years before anyone noticed? And even if they did notice, who would have the authority to recuse him from duty without a lengthy proceeding?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You're treating me like I used the term. Many of my best friends growing up were Chinese, so why don't you STFU? Besides, you're not the only member of a minority group to have to deal with bigotry.

You know how I know you are racist?

When one senator calls another senator by their first name, you think that is wrong because one so happens to be Black and the other person is White.

Yet, when a White person uses the term "gook" or calls a non-white person "that one", you seem to make up excuses and think there is nothing wrong with it.

Yeah, setting up double standards base on a person's race is racist.

Not okay for Obama to call John McCain, "John". Okay for McCain to use a derogatory term "Gook".

Yeah, and Palin's best friend is gay, but that doesn't mean she is not against homosexuals.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

I was leaning mildly in Obama's direction pre-convention, but I figured the VP picks would pretty much tell me who I was voting for.

I didn't expect it to be such a decisive vote.

I was in the same boat. I didn't expect the VP pick to be so important in my decision. I was actually considering McCain mostly because his energy plan is superior to Obama's. McCain was also pretty moderate when it came to civil rights (gay marriage, right to choose abortion, etc.) McCain's main weakness to me was his tax plan. The trickle-down doesn't work, it's a government backed pyramid scheme. Plus, I really wanted to vote a Black man (or woman if Clinton won the nomination) into office in hopes that a few years from now there will be more diverse and agreeable candidates.

However, given McCain's age, my decision for McCain pretty much depended on his VP pick. When he picked a religious nut, it was over. After Palin was named VP McCain started changing his stance on civil rights. And with Palin almost certainly going to be President if not in the 1st term but in the 2nd if re-elected, there was no way I could vote for McCain.

So I've completely swung back in favor of Obama. Short of Obama pulling out of the race and McCain dropping Palin, there's no way in hell I'd vote for McCain.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

1) Ayers did what he did at a time when many Americans were protesting (both peacefully and violently) against the Vietnam war. These people had a VERY strong conviction that what the government was doing was WRONG. I don't condone or support violence to solve disagreements but I understand why people like Ayers resorted to that type of protest. Thus, comparing Ayers to Dahmer or abortion clinic bombers or murderers is NOT a valid, fair, or logical comparison.

I disagree. You just said that violence based on a VERY strong conviction is understandable. Abortion clinic bombers MOST CERTAINLY are doing the same thing. You can't have it both ways. I'm very consistent. I consider Ayers and abortion clinic bombers to be one and the same because logically, they are.

2) Ayers has stated that when he said "I wish we did more" he was referring to doing more to protest the war, not that he wished they did more bombing.

Actually, I think he was more vague about what the "more" could be, but it was clear that it wasn't limited to JUST bombing. I never made a claim concerning this, so for the most part it's irrelevant. He still does not regret the acts of terrorism he planned and took part in.

3) There is NO evidence that a bomb planted by Ayers ever resulted in the death of an innocent bystander.

Ayer's group did the bombings. Ayers supported the bombings. Ayes was a bomb maker. Ayers has said that he assumed that the bombings would result in death. Several people died due to the actions taken by Ayers terroristic plans. Whether a bomb Ayers HIMSELF placed in the location where it went off is pretty irrelevant to the argument that he IS A TERRORIST. There's NO evidence that a plane flew by Osama Bin Laden ever resulted in the death of an innocent bystander either, yet no one would rationally argue that Bin Laden wasn't a terrorist. Your argument fails via very basic logical flaws.

4) Obama did NOT accept an invitation "from him" [Ayers]. He accepted an invitation from Palmer.

Palmer and the people who were at the party disagree. Palmer says she was only there a short time, and didn't ask Obama to come. Others who were there say that the purpose of the party was to introduce Obama to Ayers politically connected radical leftist friends. I can provide a cite if necessary. This was reported on CNN.

5) At the time Obama sat on the board of these organizations with Ayers, Ayers was, for all intents and purposes, an educator - not a terrorist. His activities 40 years ago have no bearing on his activities today unless you can provide some evidence that Ayers is still involved in plotting violence against the government.

Irrelevant. He IS CURRENTLY AN UNREPENTANT TERRORIST. Not 40 years ago...not when Obama was only 8 years old. He is CURRENTLY a man who believes that it is okay to use explosives against your fellow Americans resulting in loss of life and destruction of property. You don't stop being a terrorist just because you decide to stop acting on your evil impulses any more than a serial killer stops being a serial killer just because after killing 40 people, he doesn't do it any more for fear of getting caught.

6) Praising someone's "intellect" on a matter that person is considered an expert in does not demonstrate support of the activities that person was involved in 40 years ago. We've been through this.

I never said it did. We HAVE been over that before. Your argument is a straw-man. Obama choosing to write a glowing review of Ayer's work is just a part of a pattern of support for his (non-close..according to the NTY) friend. A guy who he claimed he hardly knew and was just a person who happened to live in his neighborhood.

7) Provide some evidence for your allegation that Obama EVER invited Ayers to appear with him. You can't.

You refute that Barack and Michelle Obama where in charge of putting together the panel I'm referring to?

8) Exchanging emails with someone currently involved in politics and education in the city where you live and work is not evidence that you support the actions of said person 40 years ago.

Double straw man.

A. I've never said that Obama supported the bombings themselves. One does not have to directly support the evil despite having the bad judgement to support the evil person.

B. I never claimed this alone would qualify. It's simply part of a HUGE pattern of interaction Obama had with Ayers which proves he's a liar and that he had a long-term professional and social relationship with an admitted unrepentant terrorist.

Again, right-wing wackos are the ONLY people who seem to think that NO ONE should ever talk, work, or socialize with Ayers because of what he did, in protest of a war MANY didn't agree with, 40 years ago.

Doubtful. I doubt you'll find ANYONE other than left-wing wackos who'd say that they'd have no problem associating with an unrepentant terrorist regardless of how long it had been since they'd made their last bomb. THAT IS WHY OBAMA IS LYING ABOUT IT ALL. Otherwise, there'd be no reason for him to do it.

Some interesting tidbits from Roland Martin at CNN.com:

..which boils down to, if the leftist radicals in Chicago don't have a problem with him why should anyone else (the answer is in the question), and that people who USED TO BE BIGOTS, BUT RENOUNCED BIGOTRY AND REPENTED and in many cases went above and beyond to try and pay off their debts for their past evils should be treated the same as a guy WHO ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO DO SO.

Your post was filled with some of the most intellectually indefensibly garbled logic and misstatement of basic facts that I've seen in awhile. Congratulations. Maybe it is better if you guys stop wasting your time and get back to only offering personal attacks.

[Kerrigan]

This is so ****ing stupid. Calling him "that one" is not at all the same as calling someone a gook or arab, as you guys have said above. It is no more disrespectful than Obama's refusal to address McCain as "senator."

Grasping at straws.

[hyteckit]

McCain isn't racist, he is just senile and suffers from dementia and cranky attitude.

He calls his audience at his convention "My Fellow Prisoners".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYFm5kK4f1k

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Doubtful. I doubt you'll find ANYONE other than left-wing wackos who'd say that they'd have no problem associating with an unrepentant terrorist regardless of how long it had been since they'd made their last bomb. THAT IS WHY OBAMA IS LYING ABOUT IT ALL. Otherwise, there'd be no reason for him to do it.

Walter and Leonore Annenberg, whose foundation was behind the Annenberg Challenge, aren't left-wing wackos. They served in the Reagan administration.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

This is so ****ing stupid. Calling him "that one" is not at all the same as calling someone a gook or arab, as you guys have said above. It is no more disrespectful than Obama's refusal to address McCain as "senator."

Grasping at straws.

ummmm... calling someone an "arab" is a slur?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

With such a vague (and largely non-existent) history to examine, I have no idea what kind of President the man would be. I'm not even sure he knows who he is.

It depends.
- Earlier today in Indiana he was Malcolm X with "bamboozled" and "hoodwinked". He chuckles when he says it.

- Sometimes he's Chavez and the UFW with "Yes we can".

- He's Deval Patrick with "I'm not asking you to take a chance on me, I'm asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations". Sometimes he's even David Axelrod.

When he says "We're the ones we've been waiting for", he's talking about himself.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

He said that he wanted the government to guarantee that home prices wouldn't fall any more. I think it is brilliant. Next the government should just guarantee our salaries, and I think we'll all be set.

I should correct a misstatement of mine from earlier. While I'm not happy about the "rescue package", McCain's proposal is not an additional bail-out, it is proposed from the initial package.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I disagree. You just said that violence based on a VERY strong conviction is understandable. Abortion clinic bombers MOST CERTAINLY are doing the same thing. You can't have it both ways. I'm very consistent. I consider Ayers and abortion clinic bombers to be one and the same because logically, they are.



Actually, I think he was more vague about what the "more" could be, but it was clear that it wasn't limited to JUST bombing. I never made a claim concerning this, so for the most part it's irrelevant. He still does not regret the acts of terrorism he planned and took part in.



Ayer's group did the bombings. Ayers supported the bombings. Ayes was a bomb maker. Ayers has said that he assumed that the bombings would result in death. Several people died due to the actions taken by Ayers terroristic plans. Whether a bomb Ayers HIMSELF placed in the location where it went off is pretty irrelevant to the argument that he IS A TERRORIST. There's NO evidence that a plane flew by Osama Bin Laden ever resulted in the death of an innocent bystander either, yet no one would rationally argue that Bin Laden wasn't a terrorist. Your argument fails via very basic logical flaws.



Palmer and the people who were at the party disagree. Palmer says she was only there a short time, and didn't ask Obama to come. Others who were there say that the purpose of the party was to introduce Obama to Ayers politically connected radical leftist friends. I can provide a cite if necessary. This was reported on CNN.



Irrelevant. He IS CURRENTLY AN UNREPENTANT TERRORIST. Not 40 years ago...not when Obama was only 8 years old. He is CURRENTLY a man who believes that it is okay to use explosives against your fellow Americans resulting in loss of life and destruction of property. You don't stop being a terrorist just because you decide to stop acting on your evil impulses any more than a serial killer stops being a serial killer just because after killing 40 people, he doesn't do it any more for fear of getting caught.



I never said it did. We HAVE been over that before. Your argument is a straw-man. Obama choosing to write a glowing review of Ayer's work is just a part of a pattern of support for his (non-close..according to the NTY) friend. A guy who he claimed he hardly knew and was just a person who happened to live in his neighborhood.



You refute that Barack and Michelle Obama where in charge of putting together the panel I'm referring to?



Double straw man.

A. I've never said that Obama supported the bombings themselves. One does not have to directly support the evil despite having the bad judgement to support the evil person.

B. I never claimed this alone would qualify. It's simply part of a HUGE pattern of interaction Obama had with Ayers which proves he's a liar and that he had a long-term professional and social relationship with an admitted unrepentant terrorist.



Doubtful. I doubt you'll find ANYONE other than left-wing wackos who'd say that they'd have no problem associating with an unrepentant terrorist regardless of how long it had been since they'd made their last bomb. THAT IS WHY OBAMA IS LYING ABOUT IT ALL. Otherwise, there'd be no reason for him to do it.



..which boils down to, if the leftist radicals in Chicago don't have a problem with him why should anyone else (the answer is in the question), and that people who USED TO BE BIGOTS, BUT RENOUNCED BIGOTRY AND REPENTED and in many cases went above and beyond to try and pay off their debts for their past evils should be treated the same as a guy WHO ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO DO SO.

Your post was filled with some of the most intellectually indefensibly garbled logic and misstatement of basic facts that I've seen in awhile. Congratulations. Maybe it is better if you guys stop wasting your time and get back to only offering personal attacks.

You can cry "straw man" all you want, but the fact is that all of your assumptions are based on one big straw man - the idea that Obama had an extensive relationship with Ayers.

Here are the FACTS:

1) Palin said, "This is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country".

Let's analyze that statement. "Pal" by definition means to associate as friends. There is NO evidence that Obama was "friends" with Ayers. She also used the plural "terrorists" which implies that Obama is friends with multiple terrorists. Again, absolutely 100% false on both the "friends" implication and the multiple terrorist implication.

2) You said that Obama is a "terrorist sympathizer". A sympathizer is someone who expresses compassion for another's position or, put simply, "agrees" with a person's opinion or actions. Obama has said, on multiple occasions that he DOES NOT condone or support what Ayers did. So your statement, just like Palin's, is 100% false.

The fact is that your position is based entirely on a fictional characterization of the "relationship" between Obama and Ayers that is not supported by any factual evidence. You OPINION is that because Obama knew and sometimes worked alongside Ayers on projects then he must somehow support (i.e., sympathize with) what Ayers did 40 years ago. You also, based on what you have posted here, seem to be of the opinion that ANYONE who associates with, works with, or otherwise interacts with Ayers is somehow a inherently bad person who implicitly supports what Ayers did 40 years ago.

Thus, your entire position (and that of Palin) is one big straw man, intended to embellish and deliberately mischaracterize the political and work "relationship" between Obama and Ayers.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.2698a11.html

Some quotes that directly contradict many of the implications you have made:

Twenty-six years later, at a luncheon meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper, Barack Obama met Mr. Ayers, by then an education professor. Their paths have crossed sporadically since then, at a coffee Mr. Ayers hosted for Mr. Obama's first run for office, on the schools project and a charitable board, and in casual encounters as Hyde Park neighbors.

A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8."

A board member at the time, R. Eden Martin, described both men as conscientious in examining proposed projects but could recall nothing remarkable about their dealings with each other. "You had people who were liberal and some who were pretty conservative, but we usually reached a consensus," Mr. Martin said of the panel.

Since 2002, there is little public evidence of their relationship.

"I saw no evidence of a radical streak, either overt or covert, when we were together at Harvard Law School," said Bradford A. Berenson, who worked on the Harvard Law Review with Mr. Obama and served as associate White House counsel under President Bush. Mr. Berenson, who backs Sen. John McCain, called his schoolmate "a pragmatic liberal" whose moderation frustrated others at the law review whose views were much further to the left.

So much for your argument: "HUGE pattern of interaction Obama had with Ayers which proves he's a liar and that he had a long-term professional and social relationship"

There is no evidence of a "social relationship". All evidence says that every time Obama and Ayers were together, it was for professional reasons. "Casual encounters as neighbors" does not meet the standard of a social relationship. And there is no reason why ANYONE, let alone Obama, should not interact with Ayers on education issues. He is after all a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, an author or editor of 15 books, and an advocate of school reform with a doctorate in education from Columbia.

The ONLY people trying to make an issue out this are people hell bent on taking the focus of this Presidential campaign away from the ISSUES, which they know their candidate CANNOT win on.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Walter and Leonore Annenberg, whose foundation was behind the Annenberg Challenge, aren't left-wing wackos. They served in the Reagan administration.

So Walter and Leonore picked the people getting the money themselves? Usually, that's left to people appointed by the foundation itself - usually from academia.

It would seem odd for conservatives to pick a terrorist who took the money to start "Peace Schools" where being a political activist was more important than being graded on your knowledge of science, math or history. Doesn't seem to make much sense.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

You can cry "straw man" all you want, but the fact is that all of your assumptions are based on one big straw man - the idea that Obama had an extensive relationship with Ayers.

A. It's clear you don't know what a "straw man" logical fallacys is.
B. I outlined this relationship and you've failed to credibly rebut my claims. I see you've now moved on to other claims below, so we'll see if you do any better this time.

1) Palin said, "This is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country".

Let's analyze that statement. "Pal" by definition means to associate as friends. There is NO evidence that Obama was "friends" with Ayers.

...his neighbor, a guy who he talks to when he sees him out and about, a guy who invited him into his home to introduce him to his other political friends, a guy he exchanges e-mail with, a guy who got him jobs...no...NO EVIDENCE at all.

You could credibly suggest that there is no evidence that they have been "close" friends which is the standard the NYT used. "Close" would infer that they had a relationship that went above and beyond being friendly with each other when they just happened to see one another or while they were helping each other out at work or politically - doing things on a personal level. But, you don't have to be a "close" friend to "pal" around with someone. All it takes is a willingness and desire to spend time with them.

She also used the plural "terrorists" which implies that Obama is friends with multiple terrorists. Again, absolutely 100% false on both the "friends" implication and the multiple terrorist implication.

He's willing to hang out with the leader of Iraq without preconditions, and if he doesn't have a problem hanging out with those two, I'm pretty sure that there are other terrorists he'd be willing to hang out with as well. Such a suggestion isn't far fetched. I would agree that the "s" could be debated, but that part isn't anywhere close to being "false".

2) You said that Obama is a "terrorist sympathizer". A sympathizer is someone who expresses compassion for another's position or, put simply, "agrees" with a person's opinion or actions. Obama has said, on multiple occasions that he DOES NOT condone or support what Ayers did. So your statement, just like Palin's, is 100% false.

You're confusing the issue. I never said he was a "terrorism sympathizer". If I had, your argument would be correct. He claims that he doesn't have any sympathy for terror. On the other hand, I believe you yourself suggested that Obama would understand why Ayers did what he did. If that isn't expressing compassion for his position, I don't know what is.

The fact is that your position is based entirely on a fictional characterization of the "relationship" between Obama and Ayers that is not supported by any factual evidence.

I've stated the factual evidence. You've been unable to refute it. A perfect example where there really isn't a point for debate is why Obama went to Ayers home. Palmer disputes your claim that SHE invited him.

You OPINION is that because Obama knew and sometimes worked alongside Ayers on projects then he must somehow support (i.e., sympathize with) what Ayers did 40 years ago.

That's like the THIRD or FOURTH time you've misstated my very clear position. EIther your reading comprehension skills are woefully inadequate and you shouldn't be debating people on the issues, or you are straight out lying out of frustration.

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT OBAMA SUPPORTS TERROR (what Ayers did). I SAID HE SUPPORTS A TERRORIST, WHICH HE DOES. There is a clear difference.

Obama simply doesn't view Ayers actions to be worthy of not having a relationship with him, regardless of his claimed disagreement with him on what he did. Most people WOULD NOT choose to have a social/working relationship with an unrepentant terrorist. Obama chose to do so. The fact is you can't refute that, and so instead you pick another argument that I never made so you can feel like you won. Congratulations, you continue to win all the arguments I don't make.

{lots of other strawman logical fallacies snipped, due to my being a nice guy and do not want further embarrassment to befall my debate opponent]

You also, based on what you have posted here, seem to be of the opinion that ANYONE who associates with, works with, or otherwise interacts with Ayers is somehow a inherently bad person who implicitly supports what Ayers did 40 years ago.

Stawman.

Thus, your entire position (and that of Palin) is one big straw man, intended to embellish and deliberately mischaracterize the political and work "relationship" between Obama and Ayers.

You don't know what a "strawman' is.

Some quotes that directly contradict many of the implications you have made:

The quotes contradict the strawman you set up - not my argument. Thanks, but no thanks.

So much for your argument: "HUGE pattern of interaction Obama had with Ayers which proves he's a liar and that he had a long-term professional and social relationship"

Not at all. I outlined it. All you can do is quote a newspaper that says that despite the years of political help they gave each other, there's no evidence that they had any kind of working/political/social relationship. Patent B.S.

There is no evidence of a "social relationship". All evidence says that every time Obama and Ayers were together, it was for professional reasons.

"Casual encounters as neighbors" does not meet the standard of a social relationship.

HELL-AR-IOUS!!! Pure comedy, right there. When you meet as neighbors you are engaging in SOCIAL INTERACTION. When you choose to engage in social interaction with one of your neighbors, by definition you are engaging in a social relationship.

Man...the intellectual depths some will sink to in order to defend this guy.

And there is no reason why ANYONE, let alone Obama, should not interact with Ayers on education issues.

He is after all a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, an author or editor of 15 books, and an advocate of school reform with a doctorate in education from Columbia.

No one is debating that the radical left-wing represented by academia has no problem supporting terrorists. Especially in the corrupt city of Chicago where the left has had no problems with things like terrorism, voter fraud, intimidation, etc. That's a given.

"School reform" as well all is just a code word for using the education system to indoctrinate children into liberal political activism. THAT is what Obama was helping Ayers with. It wasn't anything altruistic, moderate or reasonable to anyone who knew what was going on. He opened 'Peace Schools" where it was more important to learn to be an activist than to be graded on your knowledge of math, history or science. That's not any kind of "reform" that the vast number of Americans would view as a positive step forward.

The ONLY people trying to make an issue out this are people hell bent on taking the focus of this Presidential campaign away from the ISSUES, which they know their candidate CANNOT win on.

When one candidate is lying about his record, past experience and political point of view to get elected (since he knows that if people knew the REAL Obama that they would not elect him), his claims on the issues are a moot point. If he'll lie about WHO HE IS, he'll lie about what he will do and can do regarding the issues. Remember, he's not the guy he claims he is. THAT GUY, is John McCain.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So Walter and Leonore picked the people getting the money themselves? Usually, that's left to people appointed by the foundation itself - usually from academia.

It would seem odd for conservatives to pick a terrorist who took the money to start "Peace Schools" where being a political activist was more important than being graded on your knowledge of science, math or history. Doesn't seem to make much sense.

No, the people who "pick the people getting the money" are the foundation trustees, who are:

The Honorable Leonore Annenberg, President and Chairman
Wallis Annenberg, Vice President
Lauren Bon
Gregory Annenberg Weingarten
Charles Annenberg Weingarten
(and, until his death in 2002, Walter Annenberg, founder)

The way it works is that the foundation staff picks promising proposals to bring to the trustees, who have to ultimately sign off on whatever the foundation funds. And in the case of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, we're talking about a $49.2 million grant awarded in 1995, in response to a proposal co-written by Ayers. The trustees would have been intimately involved from the get-go.

Edit: Also apparently intimately involved in the Annenberg Foundation selection process for CAC (at least according to the Wiki entry) was Vartan Gregorian, then-president of Brown University (currently the president of the Carnegie Corporation of New York), who's such a noted terrorist sympathizer that President Bush gave him the Medal of Freedom in 2004.

[OAW]

Is it just me, or is McCain stiffer than a 2 x 4? The man never turns his head! Is his neck totally arthritic or something? He has to turn his entire body to look in a different direction. And does he ever let his arms down? Everytime I see him he's holding them all bunched up. Given his body language and his general tone of voice he simply comes off as a seriously uptight old man.

OAW

[Shaddim]

I dunno, they broke both his shoulders and screwed up his back, I imagine that could cause some neck trauma.

Doncha think?

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Is it just me, or is McCain stiffer than a 2 x 4? The man never turns his head! Is his neck totally arthritic or something? He has to turn his entire body to look in a different direction. And does he ever let his arms down? Everytime I see him he's holding them all bunched up. Given his body language and his general tone of voice he simply comes off as a seriously uptight old man.

OAW

Are you fakking kidding me?