Vindibudd
Well Ronson, list them all together again for me because I haven't been reading all your posts in this thread and I will look at it and tell you why it is different from Obama paling around with a domestic terrorist.

You honestly can't scroll up? Oh well.

http://www.drunkduck.com/community/view_topic.php?pid=636979&cid=241&tid=45138#636979

http://www.drunkduck.com/community/view_topic.php?pid=636655&cid=241&tid=45138#636655

rufus_edge
blah blah terrorist black muslim blah blah

Vindibudd
blah blah socialist healthcare not a citizen blah blah

But what about McCain's terrorist ties?

Okay, now it's getting funny again! lol!

What about McCain's terrorist ties is a valid question, since it's been asked and not addressed. I will sit back and just watch for the answer...

ozoneocean

rufus_edge
blah blah terrorist black muslim blah blah

Vindibudd
blah blah socialist healthcare not a citizen blah blah

But what about McCain's terrorist ties?

I can scroll up, I just don't feel like reading 5 pages of arguments that I have nothing to do with. Ronson was arguing with Rufus about the terrorist things, not me.

Anyway, I automatically discount anything that Olberman says. Other than that:

1. McCain visiting Pinochet does not mean that McCain has TIES WITH TERRORISTS OMG.

Obama sitting on a board with, sending money to, having parties with a KNOWN CONFESSED UNREPENTANT DOMESTIC TERRORIST is something that is inexcusable for someone wanting to be a president of the united states.

End of story. No b-b-but MCCAIN! I'm not playing that tit for tat game.

radarig

Vindibudd
Well Ronson, list them all together again for me because I haven't been reading all your posts in this thread and I will look at it and tell you why it is different from Obama paling around with a domestic terrorist.

You honestly can't scroll up? Oh well.

http://www.drunkduck.com/community/view_topic.php?pid=636979&cid=241&tid=45138#636979

http://www.drunkduck.com/community/view_topic.php?pid=636655&cid=241&tid=45138#636655

Ozzy
blah blah blah ringo star idiot blah blah

Liddy?
Are you serious?

Pinochet?
It wasn't McCain's idea to meet him and our government supported Pinochet. It's not the same as our president meeting with the second coming of Hitler without preconditions.

Iran-Contra?
"McCain's office responded quickly. McCain said he had resigned from the council in 1984. Further, McCain said that in May 1986 he asked the group to remove his name from the letterhead. McCain's office produced two letters from 1984 and 1986 to back his account."

McCain knew a guy that lobbied for Saddam Hussein?
And George Washington knew a guy that knew a guy that knew a guy that knew Hitler.

He still isn't friends with an unrepentant terrorist.

And the Huffington Post and Keith Olberman aren't valid sources, like Wikipedia.
If you want to ask the question, "who are the real terrorists: terrorists or the government?", you're changing the topic.
That question could be asked of more presidents than you can shake a stick at.
And we all know how spang likes to shake sticks.

lothar
did you ever hear anyone talking about bush or clintons birth certificates ??? white insecurity ! you celebrate the diversity of the country exept every time anybody not white tries to level up, a bunch of racist assholes spread fear and suspicion about them !
i guess its to be expected when you're about to beat the final boss !
and what the hell is wrong with a little socialism ? do you people who fear it even know what it is ?
OBAMA 08 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Obama is also the name of a town in Japan

Is this entire post a joke? Every president in history has had to prove that he was a natural born citizen, as defined by the Constitution. Why have a Constitution if you're going to ignore it?
People have been questioning John McCain about this natural-born citizen status because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html

What's wrong with socialism?
EVERYTHING
I think history has proven that countless times.
And we already have more than a little socialism in this country.

Here's a question for you:
Why has The United States of America been the greatest country in the world for 230 years?

Rufie
Pinochet? It wasn't McCain's idea to meet him and our government supported Pinochet.

Does the government's support for Pinochet make it morally a good thing to meet with him?

Rufie
And the Huffington Post and Keith Olberman aren't valid sources, like Wikipedia.

And linking to No Quarter, as you've done, is better? What are valid sources, in your view?

It isn't a morally good thing to meet with him and it isn't a morally bad thing.
It's all about protecting America's interests and responsibly and respectfully dealing with the rest of the world.
It was McCain's responsibility to meet with him, strengthen the relationship between our countries, and discuss combating communist expansion.
This is what international relations is all about.

Of course the meeting was friendly, we'd want a meeting between any two members of government from any two countries to be friendly and respectful.
He was doing what Obama's trying to do now, only in 1985.
He never said he thought Pinochet was a good person or that he was the ideal leader of Chile; he was somebody who was important to the world and it was important to deal with him.

These are all the the facts that they based the article on:
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Pinochetmeeting.pdf
The entire remainder of the article was just Huffington Post telling you what to think about it.
If that pdf disturbs you so much, go ahead and be disturbed.

That No Quarter article was by no means unbiased, so just pay attention to the facts that are in it.

Someone
Liddy?
Are you serious?

Yes. If you don't Know why then you aren't paying attention.

Someone
Pinochet?
It wasn't McCain's idea to meet him and our government supported Pinochet. It's not the same as our president meeting with the second coming of Hitler without preconditions.

Oh. Interesting. A rogue dictator who overthrows a democracy and kills a lot of people is not wrong unless official American policy states it. How very arbitrary of you. By the way, at this time the United States government was condemning his actions. I thought a terrorist was a terrorist.

Someone
Iran-Contra?
"McCain's office responded quickly. McCain said he had resigned from the council in 1984. Further, McCain said that in May 1986 he asked the group to remove his name from the letterhead. McCain's office produced two letters from 1984 and 1986 to back his account."

Assuming you aren't lying, You get one off the list for this.

Someone
McCain knew a guy that lobbied for Saddam Hussein?
And George Washington knew a guy that knew a guy that knew a guy that knew Hitler.

Um... McCain picked this guy to run his transition team. Certainly sounds like they're "palling around"

Someone
He still isn't friends with an unrepentant terrorist.

Only because your definition of "terrorist" doesn't include a mass-murdering dictator, a convicted felon who went on to encourage the murder of government officials or a guy who was working for Saddam Hussein.

This time. If Obama had any of these ties I'm sure you would be conflating them. The Ayers connection is so unimportant, and Ayers' role in society today has changed from his heinous acts in the past... which really gets to the point.

Your spin of McCain's "terrorist" buddies is a much larger contortion than anything anyone needed to say in regards to the Ayers thing. But it does prove your bias towards McCain and your inability to judge them equally.

Let me be clear: I don't care even a little bit about these ties that McCain has made. While I currently think his current campaign has sunk pretty low, McCain has been a very honest and straight forward politician, I just don't agree with his policies or ideas.

He's not a terrorist sympathizer, and neither is Obama. I just felt if was important to show everyone that your defense of McCain will extend to excusing him for some of the very things you attack Obama for.

Someone
And the Huffington Post and Keith Olberman aren't valid sources, like Wikipedia.

the factual accuracy of the articles I posted is uncontested by even the McCain campaign...unlike many of the right wing sites you have linked to.

Someone
If you want to ask the question, "who are the real terrorists: terrorists or the government?", you're changing the topic.

I would really like to hear what your official definition of terrorist, because right now it seems to be "Whoever rufus_edge decides is a terrorist."

Someone
That question could be asked of more presidents than you can shake a stick at. And we all know how spang likes to shake sticks.

Whatever that means.

Someone
Is this entire post a joke? Every president in history has had to prove that he was a natural born citizen, as defined by the Constitution.

But he did prove it, but the conspiracy theorists aren't satisfied with it. Will you and Vindibudd admit you were wrong when your insane lawyer guy is exposed as a fraud? (Hint: no, you won't. The great thing about conspiracy theorists is that they use the absence of evidence AS evidence.)

Someone
Why have a Constitution if you're going to ignore it?

I've wondered that for 8 years now...

Someone
People have been questioning John McCain about this natural-born citizen status because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html

But no one on these forums, because it's a stupid argument

Someone
What's wrong with socialism?
EVERYTHING
I think history has proven that countless times.
And we already have more than a little socialism in this country.

Empty rhetoric. You should be able to actually describe your problems with socialism in the form of a cogent argument, and not a petulant "EVERYTHING."

Someone
Here's a question for you:
Why has The United States of America been the greatest country in the world for 230 years?

An infantile question.

It presumes a universal point of view. The USA wasn't great to Native Americans. Nor to African slaves. Women weren't treated great for a long while. Our current policies on pre-emptive war and legalized torture sure aren't helping much.

What gives the USA the potential to be great has always been it's ability to tackle difficult problems and to change its course much faster than some countries if we see something that isn't working.

Our Constitution is really a remarkable document because the founding fathers did try to anticipate future problems and give us the ability to address them.

America has truly been great occasionally, but it can only aspire to greatness if we comprehend the work that still needs to be done.

Rufie
It isn't a morally good thing to meet with him and it isn't a morally bad thing.
It's all about protecting America's interests and responsibly and respectfully dealing with the rest of the world.
It was McCain's responsibility to meet with him, strengthen the relationship between our countries, and discuss combating communist expansion.
This is what international relations is all about.

Of course the meeting was friendly, we'd want a meeting between any two members of government from any two countries to be friendly and respectful.
He was doing what Obama's trying to do now, only in 1985.
He never said he thought Pinochet was a good person or that he was the ideal leader of Chile; he was somebody who was important to the world and it was important to deal with him.

Just to clarify, you feel it is okay for a person to hold meetings with another person whom he or she finds morally reprehensible, given that it serves the greater good?

"McCain's office responded quickly. McCain said he had resigned from the council in 1984. Further, McCain said that in May 1986 he asked the group to remove his name from the letterhead. McCain's office produced two letters from 1984 and 1986 to back his account."

This was in the same article that you posted, so you're either smearing or your opinion is stupid and illiterate.

radarig
Just to clarify, you feel it is okay for a person to hold meetings with another person whom he or she finds morally reprehensible, given that it serves the greater good?

Yup.
How else do you expect to get anything done?

And who said Pinochet's actions weren't wrong? Who said the CIA wasn't wrong for assisting him? Who said John McCain wasn't condemning his actions?
His actions don't have anything to do what McCain was there to discuss. Whether we liked it or not, he was already the president. McCain was doing his job, and he did it well.
Read this again: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Pinochetmeeting.pdf
It's clear that they were very upset with the ambassador and US foreign policy in general. McCain was sent to help improve the relationship, and he did just that. He sat down with the Admiral, the Foreign Policy Minister, and Pinochet and discussed how they should be working together to fight communism. They talked about other things too, including the upcoming election and how to make Chile more democratic in the future.
In fact, democracy began to return in 1988, and I think McCain was at least partially responsible for that.
Is there anything at all wrong with any of this?

The Liddy thing is a terrible excuse for a smear but I'll discuss it if you really have a problem with it.

I never said I think that Berg is right and I never said he's a good person.
If you believe the experts he still hasn't been proven wrong.
Here:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html
He's trying to make sure we don't ignore the Constitution.
Also, I think George W Bush and Bill Clinton should have had to produce valid birth certificates proving that they were natural born before becoming president.

ronsey
Whatever that means.

Why don't you ask Huffington Post what it means?

rufus_edge

radarig
Just to clarify, you feel it is okay for a person to hold meetings with another person whom he or she finds morally reprehensible, given that it serves the greater good?

Yup.
How else do you expect to get anything done?

No, I agree. Given that, since Senator Obama worked with Bill Ayers in groups that serviced the greater good, would you agree that such a relationship would be acceptable in the same way?

Yes, if that were the extent of their relationship.
It is not.
The whole point of the Ayers thing is that it tells me that Obama has questionable judgement in regards to who he chooses to be friends with. That's all.

rufus_edge
Yes, if that were the extent of their relationship.
It is not.
The whole point of the Ayers thing is that it tells me that Obama has questionable judgement in regards to who he chooses to be friends with. That's all.

And you see how even though McCain's transition team leader was working for Saddam Hussein, that was okay. But Obama was on a board and went to a coffee meeting at Ayers house and that's horrible. That is the very definition of partisan bullshit.

Ayers gave Obama $100 for his campaign. McCain is Paying Saddam's friend to set up a presidential administration. Liddy - a convicted felon and a man who told his radio listeners to kill government agents - held a fundraiser for McCain and McCain gladly took the money and referred to Liddy in very friendly ways. I don't care about any of it, Rufus only cares about Obama.

This is the bullshit that passes for political acumen on the right. They don't need proof. They don't care about rational debates about them. They think that their right wing radio shows, and their right wing blogs and their right wing talking heads are the only source of the truth.

Just for the record, here's some truths these same people insisted upon:

- The White House didn't approve torture. (They did)
- There were WMDs in Iraq. (There weren't)
- Valerie Plame wasn't a CIA agent. (she was)
- They had proof that Iraq was trying to aquire yellowcake uranium from Africa. (they didn't)
- Tax cuts for the wealthy trickles down. (never)

Feel free to add your own.

The point is that the "sources" for these right wing smear campaigns come from the same people who willingly or ignorantly push lies all the time. And there is no evidence of any of these smear campaigns outside of these right wing "sources".

Rufus and Vindi tie themselves in knots believing things with the ferocity of a 9/11 conspirator - and with the same type of evidence at hand.

But point out true facts on record that make their team look bad, and they will spin and fabricate elegant explanations and not ever realize their hypocracy.

Ronson
But point out true facts on record that make their team look bad, and they will spin and fabricate elegant explanations and not ever realize their hypocracy.

As evidenced by the title of this thread, and what it has become.

liberals
boo hoo the right-wing media boo hoo

Liddy is a criminal, not a terrorist. His acts had no chance of killing anybody.
Oh, I forgot how Ayers was only joking when he promised to kill innocents and how he used his genius to create the exact bombs that would do the perfect amount of damage to government buildings to convince the government to end the war in Vietnam but had no chance of hurting anyone besides his fellow terrorists. I also forgot how there is no chance that he was involved with the murders of that Brinks affair.

Liddy was following orders when he committed the break-in. He has apologized for his actions. He went to jail for over five years, before being released by Jimmy Carter. He has never instructed people to go out and kill government agents. That is another smear. He said a very stupid thing while defending the Second Amendment.

He said, "I was talking about a situation in which law enforced agents comes smashing into a house, doesn't say who they are, and their guns are out, they're shooting, and they're in the wrong place. This has happened time and time again. The ATF has gone in and gotten the wrong guy in the wrong place. The law is that if somebody is shooting at you, using deadly force, the mere fact that they are a law enforcement officer, if they are in the wrong, does not mean you are obliged to allow yourself to be killed so your kinfolk can have a wrongful death action. You are legally entitled to defend yourself and I was speaking of exactly those kind of situations. If you're going to do that, you should know that they're wearing body armor so you should use a head shot. Now all I'm doing is stating the law, but all the nuances in there got left out when the story got repeated."

If you're going to talk about McCain being friends with Liddy, you might as well talk about Obama being friends with Rezko.

I addressed your Pinochet and Iran-Contra bullshit.
Now it's your turn to ignore it.

You didn't address it, you excused it. Liddy's criminal acts were okay because he was subverting the Constitution for the President. It's okay to kill government officials if they don't identify themselves fast enough. You didn't address the head of McCain's transition team, but you certainly could find a way. I certainly can think of a few excuses.

At the same time you smear the one you don't like with the same association crap.

I don't have to defend Ayers or Rezco, because I dont' care about Liddy or Saddam's buddy, or the Pinochet meeting or any of that.I don't have to defend your irrational statements. I don't care. There's enough evidence that Obama isn't a terrorist and will probably be one of the best presidents we've had in decades (low bar, really).

These issues are important to YOU because it's all you have.

McCain's policies are a continuation of Bush. Bush was a failure. Republicanism was a failure. People are starting to realize that.

And I wasn't "crying" about the right wing media. I was pointing out that the sources of your "facts" have a proven track record of being wrong.

I am so glad we're only a week away. And I am seriously considering early voting this year, maybe as soon as tomorrow.

Interestingly enough, this debate has gone the way of the public debate.

And that's downhill. Why does the McCain side have to be the one to get so overly bitter and sarcastic, whether it's supplying fodder for the debate or not?

People who are confident and winning don't need to resort to such tactics. They tell their strengths and why they're better. As I've already said, I'm not a gung-ho Obama supporter but he know's how to run a better campaign.

McCain is finally getting around to talking about what he'd do as President in his most recent speeches instead of the "Ayers Association/Obama Bad" game but it's too little too late.

I questioned the whole negative tack taken during a time when McCain needed to show why HE was qualified, not just rant about how Obama was NOT qualified. If all you can do is mudsling, you don't have a lot to bring to the table. That's very ironic considering McCain's considerable experience in government and the military. But he's not a very good politician, "maverick" or not, IMHO.

Part of me still wants to consider McCain, but my better judgment prevails when I consider history and the facts.

rufus_edge
boo hoo bush is bad therefore all republicans are bad boo hoo
boo hoo obama isn't a republican therefore he'll be the greatest president ever boo hoo

Wow. What are you, five?

Here's a hint: Ronson doesn't look like the whiner here. ;)

It's pretty evident that 'African Press International' website is in the tank against Obama. I believe FACTCHECK.ORG over that, and especially over you:

Guilt By Association

A frequent Corsi tactic is to point to some link between Obama and various unsavory persons and to imply that Obama somehow shares in their unsavoriness. He devotes an entire chapter to violent uprisings in Kenya following a disputed presidential election in 2007. The link to Obama? During a visit to Kenya in 2006, Obama and his wife, Michelle, arranged to take an AIDS test to publicly demonstrate the test's safety. While there, Obama spoke to the assembled crowd. Raila Odinga, one of the two candidates running for president, was on the stage when Obama spoke. Corsi concludes that the event constituted an endorsement of Odinga. He goes on to attribute all the violence in Kenya to an elaborate Odinga plot.

Corsi, however, offers no evidence that Obama actually did endorse Odinga. In fact, MSNBC reported that during that same trip, Obama also met with Mwai Kibaki, who was Odinga's opponent in that election, as well as with opposition leader Uhuru Kenyatta. And Human Rights Watch reported that both Odinga and Kibaki (or their supporters, anyway) had a hand in the violence that followed the election.

Other chapters offer more of the same regarding Obama's well-known connections to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, to former Weather Underground fugitive (and now longtime professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago) William Ayers, and Obama's friend Tony Rezko, recently convicted in a celebrated corruption trial. Nowhere does Corsi demonstrate that Obama agrees with what Wright or Ayers have said or done, or that he broke any laws as Rezko did. Corsi completely ignores what Obama actually says about both Wright and Ayers. Nowhere in the book will be found Obama's March 14 statement rejecting Wright, when Obama said, "I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country," or Obama's April 16 comment on Ayers, whom he said "engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old." Nor does Corsi offer anything new connecting Obama to Rezko, a relationship we've addressed twice in earlier articles.

Attempting to discredit Obama because of an association with unsavory people rather than with actual proof that Obama shares their views is an instance of a logical fallacy that philosophers call guilt-by-association. Corsi uses the technique to fill chapters three through seven.

Rufus:

Given that you previously agreed to this:

Rufus

RadariG
Just to clarify, you feel it is okay for a person to hold meetings with another person whom he or she finds morally reprehensible, given that it serves the greater good?

Yup.
How else do you expect to get anything done?

why are you continuing to throw out more of this grasping-at-straws guilt by association crap? I mean, if you want to be oblivious to Ronson's point that it's all a bunch of nonsense I guess that's your prerogative.

How about we talk about something at least marginally related to the issues? Like how supporting a tax reduction for the middle class is socialism?

Based on the end of that video and this article, http://www.mywire.com/a/AFP/Obamas-Kenya-honeymoon-ends-abruptly/1782891?extID=10051 , it's very clear that Obama was critical of President Mwai Kibaki and not Odinga. Obama has never distanced himself from Odinga, aside from "calling for calm" during the violence. Odinga visited Obama on a fundraising tour of the US last year. Odinga says that they speak on a regular basis.

If you believe Corsi, Obama sent Odinga two emails on December 22, 2006 saying:

"Subject: Let's Share a Dream
Hello brother,
I will kindly wish that all our correspondence be handled by Mr Mark Lippert. I have already instructed him. This will be for my own security, both for now and in the future.
Faithfully,
Obama"

and

"Subject: Mark Lippert"
Thank you for contacting me about Mr Lippert through email. Contact him through mark_lippert.obama.senate.gov"

He has even posted scans of these, if you believe they're real.

Guilt by association? The problem is that he's been proven multiple times to have very bad judgement in regards to who he chooses to hang around with. Considering that he's running based on his judgement and not experience, I don't think there can be a bigger problem.

I already stated some of the things I like about McCain, and nobody said there were any lies in there. It's a different topic if you approve of partial birth abortion, full legal benefits for gay couples, and leaving Iraq before we have won (even though it's pretty clear to me that we'll win if we keep it up, partially due to McCain's support of the surge). McCain has 22 years of military service, 21 years of service in the Senate, and four years as a Rep.

The most important thing to me is that I trust him to stop at nothing to keep the United States and our allies, particularly Israel, safe. I trust him on this issue more than I trust anyone else in the country.

Why is cutting taxes for the middle class socialism?
It's not, if you cut taxes for everybody, like Bush did and McCain and Palin have a history of doing.
First of all, I'm very skeptical that Obama will cut taxes for most people and only raise them on the wealthy, Obama defines "rich" as someone that makes over $250,000. According to his tax plan, that's the point that you start getting a tax raise. It's $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for families. Also, I don't think Obama's and Biden's voting records support their promise to cut taxes for the middle class.
According to the US Small Business Association, small businesses make up to $750,000 in some industries, $2.5 million in others, $4 million in others, $9 million in others, $27 million in others, $33.5 million in others...
Full statistics are here:http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf

So I don't believe that anywhere near as many people as he says are going to get tax cuts.

The problem with raising taxes on the "wealthy" and "large businesses" is that they will just pass the tax on to us. They'll respond by raising prices and cutting payroll. They will have less opportunity to create new jobs. They will also employ less people to build their mansions, cook their meals, and take care of their houses. They will be less likely to take risks involving new, unproven, innovative products and expanding their businesses. They will buy less cars and extra houses, and everything else that they don't need, which will be bad for the economy. There will be less people wanting to come into the country to do business, and more people wanting to leave.

The biggest problem with socialism is that there is no incentive to work beyond a certain point. If the American Dreams becomes to earn as much money as you can, as long as it's less than $200,000, that will be the point at which people stop working. And of course, working is good for society. It doesn't matter that they don't "need" all that money, they help the economy by having all that money and spending it.

Why would you want to punish success?

The almighty Wikipedia defines socialism as "a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society"
The "state ownership" part was addressed by both of the candidates' support of the wall-street bailout, which I am opposed to, and the "distribution of goods" part was addressed when Obama said to Joe the Plumber, "It's not that I want to punish your success... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody" and Biden's calls for "fairness" and "being patriotic".
The second part is also addressed by this:

All righty ... did you see him do it again? His argument started slipping, so he moved on to a new smear.

As SpANG pointed out already, African Press International (API) is an Obama smear site, among other things. Take a look and see how they are drumming up the fear that Obama and hundreds of black people are going to be killed if Obama becomes president. Disgusting, to say the least. Great sourcing, Rufus. Why not go right to the KKK website?

By the way, the original article makes statements about Odinga that aren't factually accurate. But that doesn't matter, because he's a black guy, and the people this article is written for is the folks who are scared by any black guy.

The emails have been discredited. There was no communication between Obama and Odinga ... do we really need to go on?

API's earlier hits were to insist they had audio of Michelle Obama screaming at them about information she didn't want them to mention. When FOX news went to report on the story, they promised to get the audio as soon as it was available. So far, no audio. So, FOX is duped, or is it more important to get the smear out there.

I'm glad that Rufus can admit that the Bush Administration was "bad" (his words). Now if we could just get him to see that the policies of the Bush Administration are Republican policies and that any failure they've succumbed to is a result of flawed ideology.

Of course, in an irrational mind, he can now say that Bush wasn't the right kind of Republican. I've heard the right wing hacks say that for about a year now.

So, to present a unified front, now that we've proven that Rufus' and Vindi's smears are just distractions, let's focus on this question:

Someone
Since you agree that the Bush Administration is bad (and by that we can only assume that you agree their decisions were bad), What policies of the Bush Administration contradict the Republican world view, and how would John McCain be any different?

...or, we can lock this thread right here. We're not talking about how Sarah Palin is a horrible candidate anymore, so we can start new threads if we wish.

In fact, maybe Rufus or Vindi want to start new threads highlighting their bullshit smears and we can have fun trying to get them to stay on topic.

You opinion is out of its fucking mind.

Prove that something is discredited or that I'm lying instead of smearing again.

I didn't change the topic, I responded to everything people asked of me, unlike you.

You still don't understand sarcasm, because I never said Bush was a failure. He isn't perfect, and very few other people are.
How did the Democrats fix things when they took over Congress? They didn't.
Bush is one person in the government, he's not responsible for all your problems.

I find it idiotic that anyone would vote for Fidel Castro over Nixon or Reagan.

rufus_edge
You opinion is out of its fucking mind.

No. Your sources are racist, retarded, ultra-conservative bullshit sites. Every point you attempt to make has been investigated and discredited and if you are to weak to check your stories, then you just end up looking more and more like a fool.

Prove that something is discredited or that I'm lying instead of smearing again.

Google it yourself. It's very tiring. And pointless. We'll throw articles at eachother and it'll look like - even though my side will have investigation and actual journalism and yours will be bullshit - it'll look like you have some sort of point and the truth is in the middle. That's how you people (conservative zombies) are destroying this country: by reducing every debate to a mudfight.

I didn't change the topic, I responded to everything people asked of me, unlike you.

I'm sorry. The topic was not about Obama's trip to Africa, and no one mentioned it. The most recent point was that of RadariG, who said that if you understood that sometimes you have to deal with unsavory characters to work for the common good that you actually understand that these arguments are all bullshit, but spew them anyway ... why?

You still don't understand sarcasm, because I never said Bush was a failure. He isn't perfect, and very few other people are.

You actually don't understand how to use sarcasm. Don't feel bad, most conservatives - and almost all Republicans - don't. You should stick to the areas of humor that you're people are good at - racist attacks and threatening peoples lives.

How did the Democrats fix things when they took over Congress? They didn't.

They raised the minimum wage. They actually did quite a few things. The disapproval rating is based on the FACT that Republicans are filibustering everything (which Beonher publicly said he'd do) and the FACT that after 6 years, Bush found his veto pen.

You conservatives don't understand but your time is rapidly disappearing. Sure, we won't be happy with everything the Democrats do, but if the Republicans ever want to get anything through, they're going to have to start shelving the jingoism and superiority complexes and actually start negotiating.

Bush is one person in the government, he's not responsible for all your problems.

What problems? I and my wife have a secure job. We got a house for a good deal. My comic is doing well. My only problem with Bush is that he's killing people for no reason and shredding the Constitution. Personally, I'm doing fine.

I find it idiotic that anyone would vote for Fidel Castro over Nixon or Reagan.

Well, I think it's pretty much understood that the Cuban government was fixing those elections. So you shouldn't hold the election results against the Cubans. Also, neither Nixon or Reagan were on the Cuban ballots.

See, this is another place where Republican's lack of understanding of sarcasm probably messed you up again.

I do find it odd that you defend the two Presidents who have a proven track record of subverting the Constitution.

But I'm pretty sure that's because you're UnAmerican.

See? That was sarcasm. Bet you didn't get it.

Every point you attempt to make has been investigated and discredited.
Google it yourself.
They actually did quite a few things.
So I guess liberals don't need sources or facts.

Using your logic:
Jimmy Carter sucks.
Obama's policies are similar to Jimmy Carter's.
Therefore, Obama sucks.

mentally challenged individual who is obviously mad about a lot of things but doesn't understand how the world works so he lashes out at the people that right wing hacks tell him to...all the while making his life worse
So I guess liberals don't need sources or facts.

Using your logic:
Jimmy Carter sucks.
Obama's policies are similar to Jimmy Carter's.
Therefore, Obama sucks.

Let's hear it for batshit bullshit artists, ladies and gentlemen! They don't comprehend the issues, so they rely on smears. When you stop playing the "refute the smear" game, they get all crotchety.

Here's my stance: People should read everything you write so they can know what crazy racist conservative Republican hatemongers think, and who they believe are respectable sources.

At least Vindi pretends to understand things.

Ronson
mentally challenged individual who is obviously mad about a lot of things but doesn't understand how the world works so he lashes out at the people that right wing hacks tell him to...all the while making his life worse

I respectfully ask an "Admin" to publicly denounce this statement and Ronson's behavior, as it is an unacceptable personal attack.

You still haven't proven any that Obama's emails to Odinga aren't real or that congress has accomplished "things" in the past two years, so I'll just assume you're wrong.

rufus_edge

Ronson
mentally challenged individual who is obviously mad about a lot of things but doesn't understand how the world works so he lashes out at the people that right wing hacks tell him to...all the while making his life worse

I respectfully ask an "Admin" to publicly denounce this statement, as it is an unacceptable personal attack.

You still haven't proven any of those things I mentioned, so I'll just assume you're wrong.

By the logic you have used throughout this thread, it is now your responsibility to disprove my allegations about your mental condition, your anger issues, your media bias and the direction of your life.

But I'll cheerfully withdraw them and apologize. No need to poke the bear. I will also publicly apologize to the admins, because I know they take a lot of crap.

I will not refute your retarded arguments that come from hate and racist sites. It's like arguing with a child about Santa Claus.

For your viewing pleasure, another Palin fan says what they're all thinking:

"and he's a nigger"
I respectfully ask sarah palin to publicly denounce this behavior, as it is unacceptable racist bullshit .

I doubt she will. This team has a way of pretending things didn't happen.

Here's an interesting article:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/261528

One of Governor Palin's claim to fame is that she has taken on the oil companies in her state, and she has. Sarah Palin has opposed a windfall profit tax on the oil companies in her state. With part of the revenues from the tax, she asked the Alaska State Legislature to give Alaskans a special one-time payment of $1,200 to help with the high costs of energy. What Mrs. Palin did in effect was a form of socialism, so she is in effect condemning herself when she attacks the Democratic nominee in that fashion.

There has never been a tax - never - in the history of this country that did not redistribute wealth. It is impossible to tax without doing that. To hear Sarah Palin use the socialism argument is interesting, because Palin herself has used a socialist program to benefit her Alaska constituents. She and her running mate need to stop using that tactic because it can prove them to be hypocritical.

Huh. So I wonder why this (and the 700 billion dollar bailout) is NOT considered "socialism" to the Republicans?

Answer: Because they are hypocrites. But we already know this.

I want to thank everyone for the substantive debate in this thread. (not sarcasm, even the insults are helpful in seeing the minds behind the comments) It really opened my mind to the political debate going on right now.

To me this boils down to cognitive dissonance. Nothing the other side says, despite any amount of evidence will sway the beliefs of the other side. Everything one side says is discredited and biased, everything espoused by the other is "well-investigated and credible" No amount of impartial fact-finding will change either sides' beliefs.

You see it's only socialism (racism etc, etc) when the other side does it, when you do it; it's for the good of the country. ;)

I suggest reading The New Right:We're Ready to Lead a book that foretold the Reagan conservative surge, it's finally ending.