I'd vote for a pet rock over Obama. I'd vote for Hillary over Obama. I'd vote for Kerry over Obama. And I did give plenty of reasons why Palin is qualified. Here's another: she is a governor. What is Obama? A senator.

Do you know the difference between the two? I'll explain it: Governors run states, Senators sit around and vote present. In other words, Palin actually has a job where Obama has the job of running around pretending to actually have accomplished something other than sitting in a church for 20 years where the pastor said, "GODDAMN AMERICA" and "THIS IS THE US OF KKK A."

She abused her power? She fired someone she has every right to fire as much as you hate to admit it. She can fire someone in her cabinet because she likes the color turquoise one day. That is not an abuse of power. Don't even start with that political witch hunt with me. I'm more complex than that.

And don't come with that weak Talking Point Bullshit. I'm not your average person who can't tell the difference between a Kant and Marx, SpANG. I know the score.

As for the charge of who is and isn't a moron, I'm on a higher level of enlightenment than 4th grade so why don't you tell me how raising taxes helps the economy rather saying, OMG PALIN'S A MORON!!!

Or how about explaining to me why Obama blocks regulation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae which directly leads to the collapse of the economy?

You want to have a debate with me you are going to have string an argument together that is relevant.

I will change my mind if you can come up with something that isn't childish like say, "Faux News."

If YOUR guys get in we get Net Neutrality, Universal Healthcare (destroying the economy and your choices for medical care), a tanked economy, and Balls to the Wall Socialism, but hell you love that because your side hates what it means to be an American. Your side hates getting off your ass and doing something to better your own life without crying like a child for the government to give you everything. YOUR party has run congress for the last 2 years and YOUR party blocked ANY attempt to stop the collapse of the economy and YOUR party is the reason that we have one of the highest unemployment rates in years. And YOUR party has a VP candidate who can't even read the constitution and is so stupid that he tells a man in a wheelchair to stand up. And YOUR party has a presidential candidate who has ZERO experience in managing ANYTHING.

And you want to tell me that Palin is a moron?

SpANG
Congratulations to you both. You've hit on all of the right-wing parot talking points (a.k.a. LIES). You've spun this debate into an Obama bash, meanwhile proving NOTHING as to why you think Palin is either qualified or a power abuser, or even a moron. You just say "She's not, and you're wrong".

But why argue with you? You won't change your mind, no matter how wrong you are. It's pointless.

Just keep watching Faux News. All I can hope is that your guys don't get in. Because then we are well and truly screwed.

Yeessshhhhh!!! I never knew so many cartoonists were card carrying members of the Klan. If I could buy three or four of the posters on this thread for what they know and sell them for what they think they know. For less than a penny out of pocket I would have enough financial resources to pay the National Debt, bring the economy back in line world wide and still have billions left over.

Loose the Xenophobia folks, the color doesn't rub off, Soul Food isn't going to become the national dish, nobodys gonna make a rap version become the National Anthem, Eubonics won't be the national language, We will have an intelligent, professional, polished person leading this country for the first time since JKF took office, there won't be any more terrorists running loose than there are now, the terrorists don't come over here anymore the FBI and CIA do a better job of creating problems than they ever could.

If you're so damn afraid of a Black Man becoming President, move to Mexico, Canada, or dig a hole and hide for the next eight years.

Who said they aren't voting for him because he is black?

dragonrider
Yeessshhhhh!!! I never knew so many cartoonists were card carrying members of the Klan. If I could buy three or four of the posters on this thread for what they know and sell them for what they think they know. For less than a penny out of pocket I would have enough financial resources to pay the National Debt, bring the economy back in line world wide and still have billions left over.

Loose the Xenophobia folks, the color doesn't rub off, Soul Food isn't going to become the national dish, nobodys gonna make a rap version become the National Anthem, Eubonics won't be the national language, We will have an intelligent, professional, polished person leading this country for the first time since JKF took office, there won't be any more terrorists running loose than there are now, the terrorists don't come over here anymore the FBI and CIA do a better job of creating problems than they ever could.

If you're so damn afraid of a Black Man becoming President, move to Mexico, Canada, or dig a hole and hide for the next eight years.

I support Clarence Thomas and you don't, does that make you a racist?
I support Bobby Jindal and you don't, does that make you xenophobic?
I support Sarah Palin and you don't, does that make you a sexist?
I support Rudy Giuliani and you don't, does that mean you hate white people?
I support John McCain and you don't, does that mean you hate old people?

Nobody brought race into this because this has nothing to do with race. Forget that he's a minority and look at the things we said again. Did we criticize his policies, qualifications, and associations, or did we mention anything at all about race. Fidel Castro wasn't black and I don't want him to be my president because I disagree with him about everything and I think he's a terrible person. I feel the same way about Obama. Why the hell would I ever want to vote for someone that I disagree with on every single issue?
You don't even know what our races are.
I have a black friend who is smart and nice, so everyone who doesn't vote for him for president is a racist.

"We will have an intelligent, professional, polished person leading this country for the first time since JKF took office."
Nixon was a great president and Ronald Reagan was one of the best presidents ever, in addition to being one of the smartest. And how do you know Obama is smart when his grades have never been released? George W Bush went to Harvard so he must be smart.

The reason this thread was made in the first place was to senselessly bash Palin because she's a woman. I'm standing up to that because it's wrong and she's more qualified than Obama. Now that you people have been proven wrong, you want to discuss "faux news" and personal attacks instead of qualifications or how much sense the candidates' ideas make.

If Obama doesn't get elected, I'm not moving to Canada, but you can move to Cuba, because they have the same healthcare policies and economic policies there.

lol!
Vindi has proved exactly what I was saying in quite a funny and extreme way.
None of those candidates represent that much, they say what they do to get elected, that's why they're chosen from their parties. Vindi really doesn't like him because of what he represents: a good chance for a party Vindi opposes. And like the rest, he dresses it up with rationalisations. I don't mean to be too personal here, but it's a great example.
-----
Rfus, seriously??????????

George W Bush went to Harvard so he must be smart.

. It doesn't work like that... It never, ever has. -_-
Although I doubt he's as big a moron as he acts.

rufus_edge
Nixon was a great president and Ronald Reagan was one of the best presidents ever, in addition to being one of the smartest.

You must be wrong about Reagan, by your own insistence that college determines intelligence:

At Eureka College, his grades were more often C's than A's. After college, he looked for work as a radio announcer.

Nixon, on the other hand, was very smart and it showed in his grades. So the fact that he was a shifty underhanded trickster was how he exemplified it as President.

And how do you know Obama is smart when his grades have never been released?

Well, since college is the only thing you need to prove someone is smart, you can look at what is a matter of public record:

Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988. At the end of his first year, he was selected, based on his grades and a writing competition, as an editor of the Harvard Law Review. In February 1990, in his second year, he was elected president of the Law Review, a full-time volunteer position functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the Law Review's staff of eighty editors. Obama's election as the first black president of the Law Review was widely reported and followed by several long, detailed profiles. During his summers, he returned to Chicago where he worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley & Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990. After graduating with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991, he returned to Chicago.

Now, I can't find confirmation on Harvard's requirements for a magna cum laude (lack of interest in a deep search. Feel free if you wish). I did see a forum posting that claimed to get a J.D magna cum laude from Harvard you need at least a 3.8 average. So, smarter than Reagan, if that's true and it's your only definition.

But that doesn't matter. If he had released his records proving his intelligence to you, we would get the other end of the argument ... something along the lines of "Carter was smart, too, but he was a bad president blah, blah, blah..."

George W Bush went to Harvard so he must be smart.

A legacy with poor grades. But he is smarter than many. Just not Obama. By your definition.

The reason this thread was made in the first place was to senselessly bash Palin because she's a woman. I'm standing up to that because it's wrong and she's more qualified than Obama.

Seriously, "proven"? Again, by your definition, her college grades are not very good and include a D in economics. She transferred to 6 different colleges (who knows why?) and only has a bachelors.

You are welcome to your opinion, of course. I'm just pointing out the contradictions in your own argument.

Good grief.
Let me try this again:

George W Bush went to Harvard so he must be smart

You turned my point into the opposite of what it meant, and use it to support your belief?
By the way, I didn't mean that in a good way, in case your mind can't handle it.

And you still refuse to acknowledge Palin's qualifications and still refuse to name a single one of Obama's.

It's not about parties, if Democrats were like they were with Kennedy I would vote for them.

ozoneocean
lol!
Vindi has proved exactly what I was saying in quite a funny and extreme way.
None of those candidates represent that much, they say what they do to get elected, that's why they're chosen from their parties. Vindi really doesn't like him because of what he represents: a good chance for a party Vindi opposes. And like the rest, he dresses it up with rationalisations. I don't mean to be too personal here, but it's a great example.
-----
Rfus, seriously??????????

George W Bush went to Harvard so he must be smart.

. It doesn't work like that... It never, ever has. -_-
Although I doubt he's as big a moron as he acts.

Vindibudd
It's not about parties, if Democrats were like they were with Kennedy I would vote for them

And pigs are gonna fly too. But back to the Palin question, someone just said this thread was started to bash Ms. Palin because she is a woman. Whoops.. I think it was a woman who started the thread, so I doubt it was to bash her because of her gender, it was started because she is a scary piece of work. Again I ask; If Clinton had been the Democratic nominee would the Republicans have tapped Colin Powell for VP?

No, because if you knew even the first thing about electoral politics you would realize that McCain is the liberal Republican and he needed to shore up his base with a solid conservative such as Palin. You guys are just pissed that she happens to be a woman and you just can't stand a woman being successful on her own merits.

Oh and please clarify who you are calling members of the KKK please. I am curious to see.

dragonrider

Vindibudd
It's not about parties, if Democrats were like they were with Kennedy I would vote for them

And pigs are gonna fly too. But back to the Palin question, someone just said this thread was started to bash Ms. Palin because she is a woman. Whoops.. I think it was a woman who started the thread, so I doubt it was to bash her because of her gender, it was started because she is a scary piece of work. Again I ask; If Clinton had been the Democratic nominee would the Republicans have tapped Colin Powell for VP?

I dont know about you, but from what I understand you have to be pretty goddamn smart to graduate from Harvard. Since when did that become a bad thing?

Im gonna quote my buddy 50%Grey over on penciljack...

I read an interview with one of the Writers for the wall street journal,and he said that when he met and hung around George W that he thought the guy was brilliant. Then George went on TV,and the same journalist thought this couldn't be the same guy because he was absolutely horrible in the public speaking arena,and came off as a complete idiot.

I love watching Bush give speeches tho lol. Theres always this one point that he so impressed with what he is saying that he pauses,lets the audience reflect on it,and then smiles like he said the most mind shattering thing in the world.

It's like in his head he's saying " I just blew your mind,didn't I?",and the audience is thinking you are such an idiot haha.

George W what a character.



how can you not like a guy like that?

Here's why Palin is unfit(bold mine):

Someone
Q: Brandon Garcia wants to know, "What does the Vice President do?"

PALIN: Aw, that’s something that Piper would ask me, as a second grader, also. That's a great question, Brandon, and a Vice President has a really great job, because no only are they there to support the President agenda, they're like a team member, the team mate to that President. But also, they're in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to they can really get in there with the Senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom. And it's a great job and I look forward to having that job.

She is wrong simply from a Constitutional standpoint. Aside from replacing The President should the need arise, the V.P. only has the power to break tie votes in the senate. A V.P. is not "In charge" of the Senate by ANY means. She is either stupid (this is the second time she has claimed this) or she is seeking more power than she is legally given. Either way-she is unfit.

Vindibudd
Oh and please clarify who you are calling members of the KKK please. I am curious to see.

Those playing the Xenophobia card, using race, religion, false charges associating with a terrorist (Ayres has paid his debt to society and is a respected college professor now give it a rest. You wanna beef about something go get in GWB's face over going AWOL rather than face combat in Nam). As I said earlier, and I was including quite a few on this thread if I could buy the lot of you for what you know and sell you for what you say you know I would have so much money it would be obscene for an investment cost of less than $0.01. As to peoples names, if the shoe fits wear it, if it doesn't then don't worry about it, have a nice evening.:whistling:

No, you are wrong.

Article I of the United States Constitution: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The VP is the President of the Senate. John Adams spent his entire tenure as VP presiding over the senate every day. So no, she is not stupid, nor is she ignorant. Apparently she knows more about it than you do. Don't even try to argue this point with me because I have years of studying it. To prove my point even further here is the line of succession to the presidency:

1. Vice President
2. Speaker of the House

What do these positions have in common? They are the utmost authorities in the houses of congress.

Joe Biden on the other hand apparently doesn't even know which articles say what in the constitution and you want to hold him up as some massive genius. Literacy would help him in my opinion.

Ronson
She is wrong simply from a Constitutional standpoint. Aside from replacing The President should the need arise, the V.P. only has the power to break tie votes in the senate. A V.P. is not "In charge" of the Senate by ANY means. She is either stupid (this is the second time she has claimed this) or she is seeking more power than she is legally given. Either way-she is unfit.

Bill Ayers never spent a day in jail for his crimes. So no, he has not paid his debt to society. And pointing out that he and Obama are associates does not make a person a racist.

And W is not running so even bringing him up is irrelevant.

If you want to call someone a Klan member then you should have the balls to come out and say it to that person's face.

dragonrider

Vindibudd
Oh and please clarify who you are calling members of the KKK please. I am curious to see.

Those playing the Xenophobia card, using race, religion, false charges associating with a terrorist (Ayres has paid his debt to society and is a respected college professor now give it a rest. You wanna beef about something go get in GWB's face over going AWOL rather than face combat in Nam). As I said earlier, and I was including quite a few on this thread if I could buy the lot of you for what you know and sell you for what you say you know I would have so much money it would be obscene for an investment cost of less than $0.01. As to peoples names, if the shoe fits wear it, if it doesn't then don't worry about it, have a nice evening.:whistling:

From the United States Constitution:
"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."

President of the Senate?
Tiebreaker vote?

Sure as hell sounds like the VP is in charge of the Senate to me.

"Ayers has paid his debt to society and is a respected college professor"
You're dead wrong. He never went to jail because the information used to convict him was obtained by illegal wiretapping. He made those statements on September 11, 2001 stating that he didn't regret planting bombs. He said he didn't do enough. He said he wouldn't discount the possibility of doing it again. He took that picture standing on the American flag. He said "guilty as hell, free as a bird—America is a great country". The man is a proud terrorist, he has never repaid his debt to society, and it's irrelevant if he's a college professor. I'm extremely offended that you'd defend a terrorist who never expressed any remorse for his actions.

Here's a hypothetical situation for you:
John Wilkes Booth kills Abraham Lincoln. John Wilkes Booth gets away with it because the information used to convict him was obtained through illegal wire tapping. John Wilkes Booth becomes a college professor. You become friends with him, work with him, endorse his book, and launch your political career in his house. John Wilkes Booth says, "I don't regret murdering Abraham Lincoln, in fact, I should have killed Johnson and Grant too." You remain friends with him. When someone asks how you can be friends with this monster, you reply "He's just a college professor. He's just a guy in the neighborhood."
Just a college professor?

From the Constitution:

Someone
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

That's its according to the Constitution. No Vote. No right to propose legislation. The don't begin sessions, they don't determine the agenda.

Listen, I know you guys can contort your brains to believe every talking point the right wing vomits into the ether, but except for presiding over the first session of congress to validate the Presidential election, The VP has NEVER been in charge of the Senate. Line with it.

rufus_edge
Here's a hypothetical situation for you:
John Wilkes Booth kills Abraham Lincoln. John Wilkes Booth gets away with it because the information used to convict him was obtained through illegal wire tapping. John Wilkes Booth becomes a college professor. You become friends with him, work with him, endorse his book, and launch your political career in his house. John Wilkes Booth says, "I don't regret murdering Abraham Lincoln, in fact, I should have killed Johnson and Grant too." You remain friends with him. When someone asks how you can be friends with this monster, you reply "He's just a college professor. He's just a guy in the neighborhood."
Just a college professor?

First, Ayers killed no one. His organization did, though most of their victims were their members. So he is no John Wilkes Booth.

Second, the activities he did participate in:

Someone
Ayers participated in planting a bomb at a statue dedicated to riot police casualties in the 1886 Haymarket Riot confrontation between labor supporters and the police. The blast broke almost 100 windows and blew pieces of the statue onto the nearby Kennedy Expressway. . . . Ayers participated in the Days of Rage riot in Chicago in October 1969, and in December was at the "War Council" meeting in Flint, Michigan. Larry Grathwohl, an FBI informant in the Weatherman group from the fall of 1969 to the spring of 1970, thought that "Ayers, along with Bernardine Dohrn, probably had the most authority within the Weatherman".

In 1970 he "went underground" with several associates after the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, in which Weatherman member Ted Gold, Ayers' close friend Terry Robbins, and Ayers' girlfriend, Diana Oughton, were killed when a nail bomb (an anti-personnel device) they were assembling exploded. Kathy Boudin and Cathy Wilkerson survived the blast. Ayers was not facing criminal charges at the time, but the federal government later filed charges against him. Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and The Pentagon in 1972, as he noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days. Because of a water leak caused by the Pentagon bombing, aerial bombardments during the Vietnam War had to be halted for several days. Ayers writes:

"Although the bomb that rocked the Pentagon was itsy-bitsy - weighing close to two pounds - it caused 'tens of thousands of dollars' of damage. The operation cost under $500, and no one was killed or even hurt."

So, not a murderer at all, let alone an assassin.

Now, as for punishment:

Someone
Ayers was ready to turn himself in to authorities, but Dohrn remained reluctant until after she gave birth to two sons, one born in 1977, the other in 1980. "He was sweet and patient, as he always is, to let me come to my senses on my own", she later said. The couple turned themselves in to authorities in 1980. Ayers and Dohrn later became legal guardians to the son of former Weathermen David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin after the boy's parents were convicted and sent to prison for their part in the Brinks Robbery of 1981.

He was not convicted because the prosecution messed up the case. this is, I'm sure, unsatisfying to you. But that's an issue you have with the justice system.

So your analogy sucks. It misses The truth by smile. Plus, Obtained and Ayers hardly had a close relationship anyway. But keep spewing the lies as you need to. Your relevance is mercifully fading.

"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States."

I know you really want to ignore everything that the constitution states that you don't like, but the fact of the matter is that the Vice President is the President of the Senate and this is mentioned in Article I of the Constitution which deals with the legislative branch and SOMEHOW the VP ALSO has a VOTE believe it or not, ask Al Gore (4 votes) and Dick Cheney (8 votes) both of whom have voted in the Senate as PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE. It's plain English, and every U.S. Government professor left wing or right wing I have ever spoken with or read a textbook by agrees with me.

Palin is right and I know it galls you but the truth is the truth.

Ronson
From the Constitution:

Someone
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

That's its according to the Constitution. No Vote. No right to propose legislation. The don't begin sessions, they don't determine the agenda.

Listen, I know you guys can contort your brains to believe every talking point the right wing vomits into the ether, but except for presiding over the first session of congress to validate the Presidential election, The VP has NEVER been in charge of the Senate. Line with it.

So it's okay to bomb government buildings and be proud of it if you don't kill anybody?
What was he trying to do? Put a little scare into the government?
You sir, are a moron.
Terrorism is never acceptable.

The fact that anyone would defend an act of terrorism disqualifies him as a human being, in my opinion.

I specifically stated Barry Hussein's relationship with this inhuman monster using facts. I even posted a link that goes into great detail on the subject. I left it up to you to decide whether or not they're close.

But the truth is, as Sarah Palin stated, Barack Obama is friends with an unrepentant terrorist and Barack Obama started his political career in the home of an unrepentant terrorist.

"Oh blah, blah, blah, blah, watch me justify my prejudice..."

It's all about image. Which is why Palin has apparently spent over 150 grand of Republican donation money on hair, make-up, clothes, and stays in expensive hotels for her and her daughters in the last two months. :)

Image and living the high life baby! :)

Their policies and what you think they represent; whatever. All that is subject to change without notice until they're in power. Till now they tell people what they think they want to hear so they'll get the votes. That includes all of them.

------
Roofy:
Forget terrorism. Seriously, don't worry your pretty little head about it. That's a dangerous subject to hold a position on, especially if you're being silly about it... You'll have to forget decades of U.S. sponsoring for real genuine terrorism, (not someone who happens to have worked one time with an old codger who was into hippy shit in the 60's).

World wide major sponsor of terrorism, possibly the biggest: Supplying weapons and training to anti Soviet terrorists in Afghanistan, weapons, transport and training to anti Cuban government terrorists in Cuba, terrorists in Laos, Columbia, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon.... It goes on. None of that is particularly obscure or hidden, the U.S. is generally proud of it. You can re-designate them as freedom fighters, but if you do, then so can others in reference to people you don't happen to like so much, like Al Qaeda...

So best to drop the silly propaganda and talk about real issues. ;)

Palin is right and I know it galls you but the truth is the truth.

No, it galls me that you cling to something you obviously have no knowledge of because it suits your world view.

Palin said she would be in charge of the Senate. The VP title "President of the Senate" confers no ability to be in charge of the Senate. It just doesn't. I'm not saying a VP has no duties to congress ... but being in charge? I don't think so.

But hey, knock yourself out. Show me where the Vice President actually presides over the senate. Except, of course, for tallying the electoral votes from a presidential election. I'm sure you will not do that, of course, instead you'll whine that you're right and I'm wrong ... and never offer proof.

I can't show you proof that the VP is not in charge of the senate, except to guide you to the senate records that are now online and show you that the VP very rarely attends, and only then when there's a tie to break or a ceremonial duty. That will, of course, not be something you'd actually be willing to look at - because of time and because it refutes your ridiculous stance.

Tomorrow, Sarah Palin will say something else that the rest of the world will roll their eyes over, but you will adjust yourself to her perspective - again - and pretend that you always believed whatever nutty thing she says. That's how you guys work. You have a rock solid belief with absolutely no intellectual curiousity backing you up.

Listen, I know you will cling to whatever your leaders tells you is true, and will twist and contort to it every time. It's silly and ridiculous, but that's what the Republican party has become.

So it's okay to bomb government buildings and be proud of it if you don't kill anybody?
What was he trying to do? Put a little scare into the government?

Uh, yeah. That's exactly what he was trying to do. He thought the thousands of people dying in Viet Nam due to almost incomprehensible calculations by our government was something that needed to be stopped.

I don't agree with his methods. I certainly don't think that someone like him should gain public office, let alone run for President. I do think that someone like him, if he submits to our legal system and becomes a free citizen eventually, should be allowed to serve his community if he can prove he has the ability to help it.

Republicans and Democrats from his community welcome his participation because he obviously has other talents than the ones he displayed in his youth. You don't know him, neither do I, but you automatically assume that the version you have settled on of Ayers is the correct one.

I know neither of you ever watch conservative news, or listen to conservative radio, or read conservative newspapers - but you're parroting them nonetheless. I'm sure it's a coincidence that you are as wrong as they are for exactly the same reasons.

Someone
You sir, are a moron.

I believe that is a personal attack, and I would appreciate if the moderators or administrators would issue a public statement as well as a private notification that you are in violation of Drunk Duck's etiquette rules.

Also, the statement is factually inaccurate. Like most of what has been posted by you.

Terrorism is never acceptable.

The fact that anyone would defend an act of terrorism disqualifies him as a human being, in my opinion.

The Boston Tea Party?
The storming of the Bastille?
The Contras (armed by a Republican Administration)?
Our funding of opposition to pro-Soviet forces in Afghanistan?

Look, I know you have no knowledge of history or your party, so that isn't fair. "Terrorism" has always been a very hazily defined term that suits whoever is levelling the attack against their opponent.

And I personally think that Ayers did more harm than good for his stance against the Viet Nam War back then. I think that resorting to violence is going to turn more against you than for you. I also think that if you commit the crime, you should submit to the punishment.

But I think the broad brush you guys like to paint with is dangerous to this country.

And painting Obama as a terrorist sympathizer is wrong and dangerous to the fabric of this country. Obama is what he always has been - a moderate democrat who thinks that we as a country would be better with a thriving middle class. He didn't choose Ayer's position in Chicago society, but since he was there he had to accept it. Just like McCain accepts the many criminals and "terrorists" in his party.

Let me make this clear: you are not a moron, but your argument is moronic. Especially the bit about being disqualified as a human being, which is a physical condition and not a status conferred by ideology.

I specifically stated Barry Hussein's relationship with this inhuman monster using facts. I even posted a link that goes into great detail on the subject. I left it up to you to decide whether or not they're close.

But the truth is, as Sarah Palin stated, Barack Obama is friends with an unrepentant terrorist and Barack Obama started his political career in the home of an unrepentant terrorist.

No, you posted an opinion based on nothing and peppered with lies. Just like in this post. I suggest you actually research this stuff from a neutral source, not a hardcore right wing site as you obviously have.

Ozzy,
"It's all about image. Which is why Palin has apparently spent over 150 grand of Republican donation money on hair, make-up, clothes, and stays in expensive hotels for her and her daughters in the last two months."
And whose money did Obama spend when he took his little trip to Europe, where he neither campaigned nor did his job. Who paid for his mansion that he got in an illegally good deal from Tony Rezko? Who's been paying his salary when he's only been doing his job half the time and running for president the other half?

You might think a little terrorism is okay, but in America, we don't take that shit.
Terrorism is terrorism.
Terrorists are terrorists.
Especially when they're proud of it.

If you don't like the John Wilkes Booth comparison, which is valid, how about this:
Terrorist bombs abortion clinic. Nobody is hurt. Terrorist gets away with it. Terrorist becomes college professor. John McCain becomes friend with terrorist, works with him, endorses his book, and starts his political career in his home, all while knowing he's a terrorist. Terrorist says he's proud of his actions, wishes he did more, and would think about doing it again. John McCain remains friends with terrorist. When asked how he can be friends with this monster, John McCain says, "He's just a college professor. He's just a guy that lives in my neighborhood."
Is that okay? If it isn't, you're a hypocrite. If it is, you support terrorism.
But we already knew that.

If the Obama supporters want to discuss qualifications so badly, why won't you just name Obama's accomplishments or try to argue against Palin's accomplishments?

Rufus
You might think a little terrorism is okay, but in America, we don't take that shit.
Terrorism is terrorism.
Terrorists are terrorists.
Especially when they're proud of it.

I'm really really happy that this whole Ayers thing is all the McCain supporters can talk about; The latest polling NBC/WSJ put out showed that Ayers/Wright was a concern for a whopping 15% of the electorate, likely all Republicans.

So yeah, keep it up! I'm sure continuing to blather about tangential relationships will make up that ten-point national deficit!

Roofy:
No idea about where Obama got that money Roofy. It hasn't affected his image though so I suppose it's ok. :)
As I say; it's about image. Superficiality. Aesthetics. How things look and how you can make them look.
-----------

The terrorist thing is nonsense. Going by the instances listed McCain would have to quit politics for good if anybody really cared about terrorists since he's inextricably tied to the very political party that's been using it as yet another tool of global foreign policy every time they've been in power. And as I say; this is real terrorism, not hippy shit. Those guys torture and kill innocents, caused billions of dollars in damage to infrastructure and resources, destabilised nations, were REAL "unlawful combatants" in many wars (unlike most of those poor bastards in Git-mo).

Jebus man, if they really cared about terrorism they wouldn't be rewarding the Kurdish rebels with their own pseudo country in Iraq, they wouldn't be doing that with the Albanians in Kosovo, people wouldn't ever want to be seen with Nelson Mandela... The entire nation of the U.S. was founded on terrorism and even piracy. The modern nation of Israel was set up through terrorist act against the British peacekeepers back in the 40's.
I don't think people really tend to grasp the notion of "terrorism".

So, I say again, drop the propaganda myth there if you care about reality and logic. In this forum we shouldn't be among those swayed by the superficial realities the media and the spin doctors seek to present. Although people are with Palin, and many certainly are with Obama.

who's the real terrorist ? who are the ones putting all their effort into terrorizing the people of america ? hmm , could it be mccain and palin ? their followers certainly seem to be terrified . whereas obama supporters seem to have a lot more hope for the future .

it's very simple why i would not vote for palin
to me there are 2 basic types of people in this world
Futurists
and
Doomsdayers
you either believe and hope that humanity has a future on this planet or you don't.

right now we are sleepwalking into the future , we are not going to survive if we don't get organized and have a common goal as a species .

i don't know how much obama can actually do , but at least he is trying to give voice to that dream . there a lot of things i disagree with him on. but an obama presidency is a huge step in a better general direction .

mccain and palin ... that's not the future , they may win , but we are all gunna lose , that includes all you working class americans who think they represent you ! they don't care about you . they use divisive social issues and vague threats to your way of life to get you to vote for them . their main objective is money . they are the party of the rich . they are the party of greed , and they try to create this illusion that you average joes can someday get to where they are . but the odds are stacked against you , because they set it up that way.

now im not saying the democrats are the good guys here , but hell , lesser of 2 evils people !

it's amazing how americans keep supporting these guys that are disrespecting their constitution , running up huge debts, and starting pointless wars , gutting their infrastructure , denying them basic health care , And almost half of america is too damned blind to see that they are getting skrewed !!!

Batman is a terrorist. read ASBAR :)

speaking of batman ...

do i have to explain why this is relevant ?

hahaha greatest worst tv show of all time. I love how the moderator believes penguin.

lothar
speaking of batman ...
do i have to explain why this is relevant ?

Yep. Sorry man, you do.

It sets a precedent of people just posting pictures and vids instead of actually taking the time to make points and respond to others. As well as not being fir on those on dial-up who can't always watch vids like that and so miss out on parts of the discussion.

---------------------
The vid is a very good illustration of what tends to happen in politics, especially U.S. politics (in other countries too like Russia and Zimbabwe). All parties are guilty of it, but in the U.S. the republics usually seem like the worst offenders, even if one of the good things about McCain is that it took a long time for him to sink to it and he still seems reluctant even now.