http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5957466&page=1

I'm a Democrat and I used to actually think of McCain as an honorable and decent person. However, it has been clear in this election that McCain is willing to say and do anything to be president. This includes reprehensible conduct like this (of which he was a victim of in 2000), as well as abandoning nearly every conviction and principal he has believed in during his entire career (I disagree with many of them, but I respected them).

It appears to me that his quest for power has corrupted his decency and honorability. He is willing to stoop to the level of those he used to despise and as a result, he is now one of those people. More of the same indeed.

This started earlier than I thought it would, so they must be pretty confident Obama won't be able to brush it off. I wonder if they will go to the non-citizen card soon as well?

When you have nothing to lose...you bring out the big guns first.

Why not? Both are true of Obama BUT this may not matter to the overall issue of the economy, which is the real issue. Here is where Obama wins and if the Dems keep there eye on that ball, they will win.

Obama looks like a Muslim, and this is why McCain is doing this. I'm almost certain, you wouldn't have this if Obama was white and looked like a typical redneck American. Normally I don't say such a thing, but it's rather obvious McCain and his campaign are willing to use anything to win. Even Hillary did.

First you have Obama called the antichrist (i.e., The Messiah), then you have Obama being called a terrorist.

Who's the real antichrist here. If any Christian followers, true Christians, follow the Book, you will know the antichrist will accuse the other of being the antichrist, will confuse the masses, and use any kind of manipulation and law to gain control over the masses.

Obama is far from being the manipulator.

In addition, who says the antichrist will be a man.

I don't see what the big deal is with him actually using this. We all know that if McCain knew the same guy that they would use it against him.

Senator McCain's got closer ties to an unrepentant terrorist (G. Gordon Liddy) than Senator Obama does to Ayers. Senator McCain's got closer ties to a dirtier white collar criminal (Charles Keating) than Senator Obama does to Rezko. And to top it all off, Governor Palin's husband was apparently a secessionist for most of the 90s; I'm pretty sure we fought a civil war over that shit.

I don't see what the big deal is with him actually using this. We all know that if McCain knew the same guy that they would use it against him.

So, you're implying Obama is a terrorist and have no problems with an American calling another American, a terrorist? Especially when there is absolutely no evidence Obama committed a crime? And what about those who support Obama? Are they not terrorists, too?

Why not just send Obama and all of his supporters in the Chicago ghetos to Gitmo. It'd be quicker and easier.

Here's another ad of having potential and being used by McCain:

Obama. One letter away from being a wanted terrorist.

Too bad the only way McCain could win is with negatives, cause there isn't anything positive about HIM.

Obama looks like a Muslim, and this is why McCain is doing this. I'm almost certain, you wouldn't have this if Obama was white and looked like a typical redneck American. Normally I don't say such a thing, but it's rather obvious McCain and his campaign are willing to use anything to win. Even Hillary did.
Come on. If Obama was a white typical redneck American then McCain would still use the Ayers connection... in a Timothy McVeigh sort of way. Race has nothing to do with it.


First you have Obama called the antichrist (i.e., The Messiah), then you have Obama being called a terrorist.

Who's the real antichrist here. If any Christian followers, true Christians, follow the Book, you will know the antichrist will accuse the other of being the antichrist, will confuse the masses, and use any kind of manipulation and law to gain control over the masses.
Really? Where exactly in the Bible does it say that the antichrist will accuse the other (what other?) of being the antichrist?


Obama is far from being the manipulator.

In addition, who says the antichrist will be a man.
The Bible, in numerous places. Here are just a few that specifically state that he is a man: Dan 7:24, Dan 8:23-25, Dan 9:26-27, 2Th 2:3-10, Rev 13:1-10, Rev 17:8-14

So I suggest that you refrain from talking about "Christian followers", "true Christians", "who follow the book". You're a zealous Obama follower... let's just leave it at that.

I have no problem with this since it's true. Obama does have ties to Bill Ayers. His political career was launched from the man's living room. They've given speeches together. And they've sat on a board together. To say they're not close is absurd.

And there are the ties to Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, Frank Marshall Davis, and ACORN. Just because the media is complicit with the Obama campaign in ignoring or burying these stories doesn't make them any less relevant or alarming.

But what McCain really needs to do, starting Tuesday night, is tie Obama and the Dems to the current economic crisis which has their fingerprints all over it. The radical ties are bad and raise serious concerns about who will have Obama's ear in the Oval Office. But the economy is issue #1 for voters and while it's never been McCain's strong suit, he can still show that Obama is in no way qualified to tackle the problem he and his party helped create.

But what McCain really needs to do, starting Tuesday night, is tie Obama and the Dems to the current economic crisis which has their fingerprints all over it. The radical ties are bad and raise serious concerns about who will have Obama's ear in the Oval Office. But the economy is issue #1 for voters and while it's never been McCain's strong suit, he can still show that Obama is in no way qualified to tackle the problem he and his party helped create.

That's what he needs to try. The problem is, he won't be able to lay the blame on the Dems, I don't think that will sell. His best bet is to lay the blame on a broken Washington and hope that people buy into his Maverick label (another tough sell since he has been in Washington for so long.)

Bush gives money to terrorists. He's paying them this very second.

Come on. If Obama was a white typical redneck American then McCain would still use the Ayers connection... in a Timothy McVeigh sort of way. Race has nothing to do with it.



Really? Where exactly in the Bible does it say that the antichrist will accuse the other (what other?) of being the antichrist?



The Bible, in numerous places. Here are just a few that specifically state that he is a man: Dan 7:24, Dan 8:23-25, Dan 9:26-27, 2Th 2:3-10, Rev 13:1-10, Rev 17:8-14

So I suggest that you refrain from talking about "Christian followers", "true Christians", "who follow the book". You're a zealous Obama follower... let's just leave it at that.

An infamous church or organization, is often referred to as a woman or even a city. A woman can still be the antichrist, however and is not exclusive to a man.

Funny you should mention Revelation. If you would have read a few verses more, you'd see the word WOMAN cited several times.

REVELATION 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns.

Not allowing room for a woman to being the antichrist, you set yourself up, my religiously-blind friend. You better assume both.

The passage above could have to do with The Church and State joining. Now, think for a moment, wise one. Who's the fucking political party who wants instill morals and guidelines and uses God as their main motto for current wars uses religion as a front for their belief system.

Shit, I can already smell the goddamn sulfur.

I'm going to look in my crystal ball. It says if McCain continues with the stupid smears which only stupid people are going to believe he will fall flat on his face. The reasons are simple, McCain has ties to bad people also. The problem being McCain ties happen to be a lost closer and haven't had a lot of media. If Obama people's make a big enough fuss over this that could become the big fresh story of day. For better or worst Obama ties have already aired and the public is bored with it. They have already made up their minds to believe or not to believe.

McCain has to present a better economic plan if he wants to win. Or find something new to attack Obama on.

It's never going to work, John. You're just humiliating yourself. - r. howard

I have no problem with this since it's true. Obama does have ties to Bill Ayers. His political career was launched from the man's living room. They've given speeches together. And they've sat on a board together. To say they're not close is absurd.

And there are the ties to Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, Frank Marshall Davis, and ACORN. Just because the media is complicit with the Obama campaign in ignoring or burying these stories doesn't make them any less relevant or alarming.

But what McCain really needs to do, starting Tuesday night, is tie Obama and the Dems to the current economic crisis which has their fingerprints all over it. The radical ties are bad and raise serious concerns about who will have Obama's ear in the Oval Office. But the economy is issue #1 for voters and while it's never been McCain's strong suit, he can still show that Obama is in no way qualified to tackle the problem he and his party helped create.


Jesus, if there were ever a sucker for every right wing attack e-mail, this guy is it. Is there anything the radical right tells you that you don't believe?

In addition, who says the antichrist will be a man.

Uch, wonderful. Another baseless Sarah Palin attack. -ohbfrank-

ok you Obama/Biden supportors and anti-McCain/Palin-ites, your candidate has the upper-hand and would seem to be On The Way, just what do you see as the failings or shortcomings of Obama (if any)?
Have you no qualms at all on Obama's experience, background, associations, and wealth redistribution qualities?

Please. This is just a honest question on my part, ok? I'd just would like to know.

An infamous church or organization, is often referred to as a woman or even a city. A woman can still be the antichrist, however and is not exclusive to a man.

Funny you should mention Revelation. If you would have read a few verses more, you'd see the word WOMAN cited several times.

REVELATION 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns.

Not allowing room for a woman to being the antichrist, you set yourself up, my religiously-blind friend. You better assume both.
Scripture is clear. You have completely ignored the verses that I referenced. You can choose to take a single verse out of context to prove your point, but the only thing it proves is that you have a preconceived notion and simply using the Bible to prove your point.

You are taking a single verse that happens to mention a woman and use that as evidence to support a female antichrist. It is quite clear from the context of that verse that the woman is a symbol for the apostate church, NOT the antichrist.


The passage above could have to do with The Church and State joining. Now, think for a moment, wise one. Who's the fucking political party who wants instill morals and guidelines and uses God as their main motto for current wars uses religion as a front for their belief system.

Shit, I can already smell the goddamn sulfur.
It is true that Scripture talks about the apostate church intermingling with the antichrist's world government. If you were to say that the American Christian church at-large might be part of that woman, I would agree. But it is absolutely clear that the antichrist will be a man.

ok you Obama/Biden supportors and anti-McCain/Palin-ites, your candidate has the upper-hand and would seem to be On The Way, just what do you see as the failings or shortcomings of Obama (if any)?
Have you no qualms at all on Obama's experience, background, associations, and wealth redistribution qualities?

Please. This is just a honest question on my part, ok? I'd just would like to know.

Shortcomings:
1. He's black
2. He's relying on new voters to actually vote
3. Did I mention he's black

Qualms
1. Experience - No as no one is really prepared to be president on day 1 and I believe he did a much better job than John McCain at picking the first person to serve with him in a possible administration (a large part of being president).
2. Backround - I don't know what you mean by backround. Is it the black thing again? If so I don't have any qualms but I think it could cost him the election.
3. Associations - A bit but no more so than I do John McCain's past and present associations
4. Wealth Redistribution - I support rolling back the Bush tax cuts.

Senator McCain's got closer ties to an unrepentant terrorist (G. Gordon Liddy) than Senator Obama does to Ayers. Senator McCain's got closer ties to a dirtier white collar criminal (Charles Keating) than Senator Obama does to Rezko. And to top it all off, Governor Palin's husband was apparently a secessionist for most of the 90s; I'm pretty sure we fought a civil war over that shit.

"There you go Joe, looking backward again."

I'm pretty sure that Joe Sixpack and your typical soccor mom (and I'd bet that this would include Palin herself) never even heard of Keating and Liddy (in Palin's case, I'm sure she'd be clueless only because she's such an outsider, ofcourse -ohbfrank- ). What they do know is that there might be a connection between the dark-skinned candidate with the unusual name and "terrorists." You betcha!

I believe I got smacked down back in May for suggesting they would do exactly what we are talking about right now.

I don't remember any "smackdown"?

I remember that idea being brought up.

You sure you don't have some form of a persecution complex?

;)

Senator McCain's got closer ties to an unrepentant terrorist (G. Gordon Liddy) than Senator Obama does to Ayers.

Um, Jason G Gordon broke into a Democrat office, Ayers bombed the Pentagon. Big difference.

And what association does McCain have to Liddy, they are both Republicans?

In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns--including $1,000 this year.

To be honest, I'm a bit more concerned about Obama's ties to Dr. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDeAnC-6P0Q&eurl=http://townhall.com/blog) Khalid (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022419.php) al-Mansour (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EcC0QAd0Ug&eurl=http://townhall.com/blog).

In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns--including $1,000 this year.

Liddy is still no Ayers

And Liddy contributing a mere $1000 is not much to sneeze at.

Hasn't this card already been played?

Gordon Liddy is a terrorist?

I guess it depends on your definition of terrorist.

I look on him as a common criminal.

btw: I don't believe JasonF thinks he terrorist either. He just had to come with some response in defense of his candidate.

Gordon Liddy is a terrorist?

I guess it depends on your definition of terrorist.

I look on him as a common criminal.


He claims he and his co-conspirators planned murder. They deny it though.

Hasn't this card already been played?


Actually it really hasn't, but who care either way? Both of these insignificant jokers are the wrong people at the worst time. My only hopes are two, that the thought of a Mr. Obama presidency coupled with a 60 Democrat Senate scares the shit out of enough voters, and two that neither one of the candidates will be able t do anything.^*




^{*My belief that Senator Obama would be considerably worse for out nation given the current global situation.}

I've been hearing about the Ayer's connection for months. I thought it was even mentioned in one of the debates? What am I missing?

Things are desperate. Pharoh is using foul language. ;)

It has, but people have seemingly forgotten. I mentioned it before but Wright was brought up in '07, and Ayers was also brought up in the ABC Pennsylvania Primary Debate.

They can play the association game but it works on two sides with McCain's questionable financial ties over the years.

Do you believe a presidential candidate's association with questionable people to be a legitimate issue in a campaign?

Sen

Um, Jason G Gordon broke into a Democrat office, Ayers bombed the Pentagon. Big difference.

And what association does McCain have to Liddy, they are both Republicans?

Liddy plotted to blow up the Brookings Institute and to kill journalist Jack Anderson. The only thing that prevented those things from happening is thata higher-ups in CReeP put the kibosh on them. Is there a moral difference between someone who plants a bomb and someone who wants to plant a bomb but is prevented from doing so? On his radio show in the 1990s, he counseled listeners to kill federal agents. The man is as much a terrorist as Ayers, and equally unrepentant.

As mentioned, Liddy has contributed to Senator McCain, campaigned for Senator McCain, and held fund-raisers for Senator McCain. Senator McCain has also been a guest on Liddy's radio show.

Do you believe a presidential candidate's association with questionable people to be a legitimate issue in a campaign?

Yes I do but I have come to realize that I may in the extreme minority on this with the Economy SWAMPING all else. Perhaps that is all for the best...I am still pondering this.

If McCain focuses on associations and not the economy - although he may be righteous - he will lose this campaign to the Obama Machine.

LIs there a moral difference between someone who plants a bomb and someone who wants to plant a bomb but is prevented from doing so?

Absolutely!

Despite what Jimmy Carter said 'about lusting after a woman in his heart,' that's different than committing the act.

Absolutely!

Despite what Jimmy Carter said 'about lusting after a woman in his heart,' that's different than committing the act.

Not even close. A more apt analogy would be if Carter had booked the hotel room and had a meeting planned with a woman, but his car broke down on the way.

Even then, adultery, which is incredibly common, can't be compared to murder (which happens a lot, but isn't as common as adultery).

Heck, I hope we agree murder is worse than adultery.

Heck, I hope we agree murder is worse than adultery.

Yup! Murder is Commandment 6 and adultery is way down to #10. :up:

Jesus, if there were ever a sucker for every right wing attack e-mail, this guy is it. Is there anything the radical right tells you that you don't believe?

What exactly did I say in my post that was untrue? Or is someone a "sucker" for daring to take issue with who Obama chooses to associate with?

Not even close. A more apt analogy would be if Carter had booked the hotel room and had a meeting planned with a woman, but his car broke down on the way.

Even then, adultery, which is incredibly common, can't be compared to murder (which happens a lot, but isn't as common as adultery).

Heck, I hope we agree murder is worse than adultery.

Please!

I'm not comparing adultery with murder.

I think you've managed to miss the point entirely.

He claims he and his co-conspirators planned murder. They deny it though.

Isn't Liddy one of these uber-macho motherfuckers who claims he knows 10 ways to kill people with his pinky, had surgery without anesthesia, etc.? I know he's a loudmouth who got in trouble for talking about taking out ATF agents with "head shots" on his stimulating and enlightening radio show.

He may not be a terrorist, but he is an asshole.

I see the counter talking points for the next week or two have been disseminated. :lol:

It has, but people have seemingly forgotten. I mentioned it before but Wright was brought up in '07, and Ayers was also brought up in the ABC Pennsylvania Primary Debate.

They can play the association game but it works on two sides with McCain's questionable financial ties over the years.

I think a lot of people have already processed the Wright and Ayers associations and have given Obama a pass. It's pretty obvious by now that Obama is not a crazed anti-white radical which is the picture that the McCain campaign is trying to paint.

As for the poster that said McCain would do the same thing if the candidate was white, I disagree. Having these loose associations with unsavory characters isn't a big deal by itself. Obama has the added issue of his race, ethnicity and name. To separate that from the charges would make the argument ineffective.

I see the counter talking points for the next week or two have been disseminated. :lol:

-ohbfrank- That's right. If anyone disagrees with the idea that Obama is a secret terrorist America-hater, it's because they've got counter-talking points.

For the record, the Obama campaign's position is that this talk of Ayers is a distraction from the real problems facing the country.

Personally, I read about the Liddy-McCain connection back in May when Steve Chapman wrote about it in the Chicago Tribune. I remembered it and I think it's pertinent, so I decided to point it out. Sorry -- there was no secret transmission from Obama Central or Daily Kos or anywhere like that.

I agree that McCain should be going after Obama's ties to the economic crisis and not this (though this is important).

I mean, even SNL knows the root causes

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/c-span-bailout/727521/

Hell, as a lawyer in Chicago, Obama sued banks to force them to issue more subprime loans.

And to say Obama doesn't have ties to Ayers is absurd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-45A6I-N5I

Actually it really hasn't, but who care either way? Both of these insignificant jokers are the wrong people at the worst time. My only hopes are two, that the thought of a Mr. Obama presidency coupled with a 60 Democrat Senate scares the shit out of enough voters, and two that neither one of the candidates will be able t do anything.^*




^{*My belief that Senator Obama would be considerably worse for out nation given the current global situation.}

Well, Bush has been great for our global position, huh? That said, if you don't like these "insignificant jokers" I'm sure that Bob Barr would appreciate your vote.

P.S. You give the average voter way to much credit if you think they'd even consider the Senate numbers in their vote. :lol:

Hell, as a lawyer in Chicago, Obama sued banks to force them to issue more subprime loans.

And to say Obama doesn't have ties to Ayers is absurd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-45A6I-N5I[/QUOTE]

I don't know the facts of the situation other than the fact that Obama didn't sue anybody as a lawyer in Chicago. He acted as an attorney representing his clients who were the ones suing banks.

Despite what Jimmy Carter said 'about lusting after a woman in his heart,' that's different than committing the act.

It was Jimmy Carter who coined that phrase?

:lol:

It was Jimmy Carter who coined that phrase?

:lol:

Maybe not precisely but don't all of us sometimes lust after someone in our hearts? :lol:

Well, Obama's recent attacks on McCain (http://keatingeconomics.com/) concerning his involvement in the Keating economics scandal has more bite than McCain's attacks do, what with our current economics crisis.

This is the kind of man that the McCain camp is trying to slander:
http://leishacamden.blogspot.com/2008/10/not-that-it-matters.html

Obama is the kind of man I want as president.

slop, do you even understand our current economic crisis?

Well, Obama's recent attacks on McCain (http://keatingeconomics.com/) concerning his involvement in the Keating economics scandal has more bite than McCain's attacks do, what with our current economics crisis.

Wasn't McCain cleared of any wrongdoing in this?

Wasn't McCain cleared of any wrongdoing in this?


IIRC he was censured by the Ethics Committee for showing "poor judgment" in attending a meeting with the Keating people, but was cleared of any actual wrongdoing.

IIRC he was censured by the Ethics Committee for showing "poor judgment" in attending a meeting with the Keating people, but was cleared of any actual wrongdoing.
...keep in mind that "being cleared by the Senate Ethics Committee" is far different than "being found not-guilty in a criminal court case".

McCain has this habit of accusing others of what he himself is guilty of. "Poor judgment" is one of those accusations.

...keep in mind that "being cleared by the Senate Ethics Committee" is far different than "being found not-guilty in a criminal court case"

So?

What was John Glenn's 'punishment' for his role in the Keating scandal?

slop, do you even understand our current economic crisis?

That's a non-issue. The correct question would be if slop understands whether this attack has more bite than McCain's. Look towards recent polls for your answer.

Wasn't McCain cleared of any wrongdoing in this?

It apparently doesn't matter. Obama was never accused of any wrongdoing yet his "associations" are a point of scrutiny.

slop, do you even understand our current economic crisis?Yeah, and I understand that the Keating thing is not related to the current situation at all. What it seems that the Obama campaign is counting on is that people just think if someone was fiscally shady 20 years ago, maybe they're fiscally shady still. Yes, it's a very tenuous connection (if there even is one), but it's no worse than connecting Obama to Ayers.

I was just pointing out how each campaign seems to be going after the other candidate's past dealings, regardless of how irrelevant it is. But with people's focus on the economy right now, the Keating thing might get more attention, not because it's connected, but that it has to do with money.

It apparently doesn't matter. Obama was never accused of any wrongdoing yet his "associations" are a point of scrutiny.


.....aaaaand this is why these elections are so depressing.

In the same news report I heard this morning, on a local FOX station mind you, they were saying that both candidate camps are accusing each other of bad judgment where nothing really happened. They said that in Obama's case, there was no evidence of any substantial relationship in this association with that so-called radical.

Yeah, and I understand that the Keating thing is not related to the current situation at all. What it seems that the Obama campaign is counting on is that people just think if someone was fiscally shady 20 years ago, maybe they're fiscally shady still. Yes, it's a very tenuous connection (if there even is one), but it's no worse than connecting Obama to Ayers.

I was just pointing out how each campaign seems to be going after the other candidate's past dealings, regardless of how irrelevant it is. But with people's focus on the economy right now, the Keating thing might get more attention, not because it's connected, but that it has to do with money.

Right, both camps know that the less sophisticated voters will grab onto these stories and run with them and that's what they're counting on.

The less sophisticated voter....

"You see! Obama is Anti-American!! He's a typical Democrat!! He's probably even a Muslim!!"

"You see! McCain is ripping Americans off with the Big Money folks! He's a typical Republican!!"


-ohbfrank-

And to say Obama doesn't have ties to Ayers is absurd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-45A6I-N5I
[/QUOTE]

Is there a less unbiased source for this? I don't trust videos using cheesy dramatic music with unsupported assertions mixed with unincriminating interviews.

'If it's negative for my candidate - it's not an issue.'

'If it's negative for the opponent - of course it's an issue.'

Yeah, and I understand that the Keating thing is not related to the current situation at all. What it seems that the Obama campaign is counting on is that people just think if someone was fiscally shady 20 years ago, maybe they're fiscally shady still. Yes, it's a very tenuous connection (if there even is one), but it's no worse than connecting Obama to Ayers.

I was just pointing out how each campaign seems to be going after the other candidate's past dealings, regardless of how irrelevant it is. But with people's focus on the economy right now, the Keating thing might get more attention, not because it's connected, but that it has to do with money.

So you claim you do understand the economic crisis. So what are the causes and root causes of the economic crisis?

So you claim you do understand the economic crisis. So what are the causes and root causes of the economic crisis?

Do you understand it? What are the causes?

http://www.roflshirts.com/images/obama-NOPE.gif

I've never hated a presidential candidate personally, but I do of Obama.

He made me switch parties. It takes alot to get someone to do that.

.....aaaaand this is why these elections are so depressing.

In the same news report I heard this morning, on a local FOX station mind you, they were saying that both candidate camps are accusing each other of bad judgment where nothing really happened. They said that in Obama's case, there was no evidence of any substantial relationship in this association with that so-called radical.

Wait. A FOX station reported that??! http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/Bronkster/ExplodingHead.gif

I've never hated a presidential candidate personally, but I do of Obama.

He made me switch parties. It takes alot to get someone to do that.

Why do you hate him personally?

Do you agree with the Democrats' policy positions? If so, why would you switch parties just because you don't like one particular politician?

Is there a less unbiased source for this? I don't trust videos using cheesy dramatic music with unsupported assertions mixed with unincriminating interviews.[/QUOTE]

And you call yourself an American? tsk tsk tsk

I've never hated a presidential candidate personally, but I do of Obama.

He made me switch parties. It takes alot to get someone to do that.

Well, I switched parties, too. I'm now voting for Obama. :lol:

But I hon't hate McCain. I just think he's mentally retarded. Being a former Democrat, how can you switch to being pro-Bush?

Not an unbiased site but it does pull from multiple sources.Obama, Ayers, Karanja — The Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the Chicago School Reform Collaborative
September 17, 2008

Just a couple days ago, on September 15, 2008, RBO revealed (http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/obama-ayers-the-woods-fund-lugenia-burns-hope-center-and-tucc/) the growing overlapping complexity of Barack Obama’s various relationships with the Woods Fund, with a focus on the Lugenia Burns Hope Center, a subsidiary of the Centers for New Horizons, and CNH’s founder and president, Sokoni Karanja.

Keep in mind the words of Jennifer Rubin, who concluded (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-woods-fund/) in a September 13, 2008, Pajamas Media article… the monies doled out through the Woods Fund to these groups, including [Bill] Ayers own Annenberg Challenge, helped cement Obama’s political relationships and bond with key players in Chicago.Thanks to an item (http://cdobs.com/archive/blogs/22155-check-1038-for-mr-davis-courtesy-barack-obama%2C1708/) published in yesterday’s The Chicago Daily Observer, we have more information about the Obama-Karanja—and Bill Ayers—connection.

The second progress report prepared by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), for the “Period Ending December 31, 1996,” provides (http://www.sonatabio.com/CAC/CAC-1996-second.pdf) the following (page 2) information about the role of the Chicago School Reform Collaborative with the CAC:The Challenge benefits from an active advisory and operations arm in the Chicago School Reform Collaborative (http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/1987-95/94-084.html), a 23-member elected group of teachers, principals, school reform activists and foundation staff. [...]

The Collaborative meets monthly and has committees which meet more often. A particularly important and helpful committee of the Collaborative is the Evaluation Committee which meets regularly with the team retained to evaluate the work of the Challenge and the progress of school reform in Chicago. The Evaluation Team is helping shape the evaluation and advising the team and the CAC staff on how best to use the outcomes and lessons learned as they become available throughout the five years [1995-1999] the evaluation is expected to cover.

Much of the direction and program content of the Challenge is generated in the discussions of the Collaborative and from the input of its individual members….So, let’s connect some more dots. While reading through this report, one name immediately jumped off the page that lists the members of the Collaborative—Sokoni Karanja, executive director of the Centers for New Horizons.

This would be the same Sokoni Karanja with whom, in 1994, Obama co-founded the Lugenia Burns Hope Center as a CNH subsidiary.

The co-founder and co-chair of the Collaborative (http://billayers.wordpress.com/biography-history/) in 1994[1], described as the “key operational arm” of the CAC, was Bill Ayers[2], that “guy” who just happens to live in Obama’s neighborhood—that “guy” who just happens to be the unrepentant domestic terrorist and former leader of the Weatherman, Bill Ayers. THAT GUY.

And, it was Barack Obama who was recruited (http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/p0b06.pdf) by the Collaborative to serve as CAC chair.

The next obvious question is whether Sokoni Karanja, and the CNH, benefitted from this relationship. Looking only at the period covered in this report, the answer is “yes”.

In 1995 the Wendell Phillips Academy, the first predominantly black public high school in Chicago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Phillips_Academy_High_School), was awarded $24,900. The “Fiduciary Agent” for the award was Centers for New Horizons, which is listed by the Wikipedia as a “community partner”. The award was made by check February 5, 1996,[3] in one payment of $24,900. Interestingly, this was the first award paid out, using the first number in the checkbook—1001.

In 1996 the Wendell Phillips Academy received its second award, this time in the amount of $150,000. The first payment of $50,000 was made on August 22, 1996, with the remainder, $100,000, listed in the “Amount Owed” column.

Returning to Sokoni Karanja, we can now assert that he was among those members of the Collaborative, the working arm of the CAC, who helped decide the fate of those cash awards, including funds for which his CNH served as the “Fiduciary Agent”, in collaboration with his friend, Barack Obama, and associate, Bill Ayers.

Notes
1 — See page 29 for citation: Chicago School Reform Collaborative (1994), A concept paper. Chicago Annenberg Challenge (http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/p0e01.pdf). No author cited.
2 — According to the biographical profile (http://billayers.wordpress.com/biography-history/) on his blog, Ayers founded the Small Schools Workshop (SSW); this brief staff bio (cache file circa 1998/99) (http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:nErsxC1F99oJ:www.spock.com/William-Ayers-RdEB01XA+billayers.html&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us) states he was then co-director of SSW, which is headed by “Maoist hardliner and former Weatherman” (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/06/maoist-hardliner-and-former-weatherman.html) Mike Klonsky. The Small Schools Workshop received a $175,000 CAC award in 1995.
3 — Although funds were granted to the CAC in January 1995 (http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/p0e01.pdf), it was not until this February 5, 1996, award that any were disbursed.
http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/obama-ayers-karanja-the-chicago-annenberg-challenge-and-the-chicago-school-reform-collaborative/

I've never hated a presidential candidate personally, but I do of Obama.
You're either a bit too loose with your use of the word "hate" or you need to find some perspective.

You're either a bit too loose with your use of the word "hate" or you need to find some perspective.

Perspective? This is a man who will be potentially (likely) in charge of this country for four years, who will impact my daily life on several levels. Maybe you lack the necessary perspective yourself.

I'm not loose with it. I despise the man in just about every regard.

You're either a bit too loose with your use of the word "hate" or you need to find some perspective.

I don't know, it sounds about the same as the Anti-Palin folks. I've heard lotsa hateful evil stuff both online and in the real world. I'd say this kind of emotional reaction is slowly becoming the norm in today's Election/Political environment.

But I hon't hate McCain. I just think he's mentally retarded. Being a former Democrat, how can you switch to being pro-Bush?

I'm not pro-Bush, I'm pro-McCain. They aren't the same, despite what the media and Obama like to tell you. Obama and his 97% voting with his party record is just as establishment, if not more, than the 90% he likes to pin on McCain.

Why do you hate him personally?

Do you agree with the Democrats' policy positions? If so, why would you switch parties just because you don't like one particular politician?

I agree with several positions of each party. I plan on voting Democrat in the VA governor's election, FWIW.

I vote for a candidate, not a party, but I've never voted for a republican in any race before, but I will this election for president.

Obama is the face and voice of his party. Since I do not support him in any way, it would seem logical not to support the party that backs him either. But I really like the dem in VA to run the state, so I'm going with him, but that's local anyway.

So, what things will Obama do to your current situation which will put you in some kind of jeopardy. National security? Economy?

I don't know, it sounds about the same as the Anti-Palin folks. I've heard lotsa hateful evil stuff both online and in the real world. I'd say this kind of emotional reaction is slowly becoming the norm in today's Election/Political environment.

Exactly, and the recent "Palin is a racist" shit is a great example of such a thing.

But shouldn't you be passionate about your political beliefs? We've become very complacent in this country over the past 100 years. Politics used to be a very emotional issue, just ask Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr :D

People don't vote their heart anymore, they vote their wallet or worse. More people should speak up for and against candidates they find emotionally polarizing, whether it be either candidate.

Maybe reality TV is to blame...

So, what things will Obama do to your current situation which will put you in some kind of jeopardy. National security? Economy?

He likes to think I'm rich, for one. His tax plan doesn't take into account the fact I might make alot of money but have a high mortgage and student loan payments to cover. What I pay in SL debt and mortgage a year is more than most people on this board make, I guarantee it.

I don't like his health care plan, which I get to pay for.

I really don't like his views of national security and the war. I don't support the Iraq war, but we are there and we need a rational exit strategy and his ain't it. His inability to recognize the progress we've made there is characteristic of a stubborness that will likely highlight his presidency.

I don't think he stands for anything but buzz words without meaning. Hope, change, what do these mean to Obama? If you question it, you are against it. Sounds pretty gestapo to me.

I believe I will have less money, less rights, and less feeling of national security under Obama. I don't feel he's equipped to deal with the several crises this country is facing and will only make a bad situation much much worse.

However, I readily recognize that either candidate, given the current state of affairs, will lose by winning. Some will cost us more than others.

I agree with several positions of each party. I plan on voting Democrat in the VA governor's election, FWIW.



What Virginia governor's election? There isn't such an election this year.

People don't vote their heart anymore, they vote their wallet or worse. More people should speak up for and against candidates they find emotionally polarizing, whether it be either candidate.American elections have always been about three things, in varying degrees - race, the economy, and national security. I don't know what this "voting your heart" crap is about.

American elections have always been about three things, in varying degrees - race, the economy, and national security. I don't know what this "voting your heart" crap is about.

Yep. I'd rather people vote with their brain rather than their heart.

Well, I switched parties, too. I'm now voting for Obama. :lol:


Are you old enough to vote?

What Virginia governor's election? There isn't such an election this year.

I'm sorry I meant Congress, I'm doing too many things at once today.

American elections have always been about three things, in varying degrees - race, the economy, and national security. I don't know what this "voting your heart" crap is about.

Will you permit me to add a 4th thing - personality (charisma).

I don't know, it sounds about the same as the Anti-Palin folks. I've heard lotsa hateful evil stuff both online and in the real world. I'd say this kind of emotional reaction is slowly becoming the norm in today's Election/Political environment.

I don't *hate* anyone, certainly not a politician I don't know like Palin.

What I pay in SL debt and mortgage a year is more than most people on this board make, I guarantee it.

Is this saying what I think it is saying? Your mortgage payment and loan payment combined is more than people MAKE? In what time frame? If this is true, you are rich. :lol: I think you underestimate the income of people here.

LEt's say you are making over $1 million per year. You don't think you qualify as rich and you don't expect to pay a higher rate of income tax?

And judging from your post, you are not a Democrat. You found your way home.

What I pay in SL debt and mortgage a year is more than most people on this board make, I guarantee it.


Must be nice.

I'm not pro-Bush, I'm pro-McCain. They aren't the same, despite what the media and Obama like to tell you.

If you believe that, I invite you to read "McCain: The Myth of a Maverick", published last year. Excellent book. Written by Matt Welch, editor-in-chief of Reason Magazine, which is an excellent libertarian publication.

Are you old enough to vote?

Since you personally observed the finalized wording of the US Declaration of Independence, I don't have to ask silly questions like you are.

Is this saying what I think it is saying? Your mortgage payment and loan payment combined is more than people MAKE?

My mortgage and SL payments for my wife and myself is $5500/mo. That's $66k per year, which yes, I think is probably the top 10% of posters on this board.

In what time frame? If this is true, you are rich. :lol: I think you underestimate the income of people here.

I am not rich, let me assure you. And I don't. It's not an insult, $66k is alot of money to anyone.

LEt's say you are making over $1 million per year. You don't think you qualify as rich and you don't expect to pay a higher rate of income tax?

I wish I made that much. It's not even close, not even in the same sport.

And no, I don't. I expect to pay my fair share. I didn't grow up rich. I put in the time, I went to school, I worked hard to get a good job. ANYONE can do that, I took loans to do it, the same loans available to everyone else. A flat tax rewards and punishes the same. I still believe there should be a lower threshold, just as 40% of americans pay no tax at all (but yet somehow, Obama's tax cuts affect 90% of all americans, how nice). But to not take into account people who might live in say, one of the wealthiest counties in America in a modest townhome that's 30 years old and call them rich is absurd. Hillary recognized this.

And judging from your post, you are not a Democrat. You found your way home.

You might be surprised what platforms I do and don't agree with for each party. I'm a socially conservative democrat at best. I am pro-choice and anti-gun, two policies the republicans would never stand with me with, but I am not a single issue voter.

What I pay in SL debt and mortgage a year is more than most people on this board make, I guarantee it.

Please don't play "my dick is bigger than yours," because I guarantee your dick is not as big as you think it is.

Apologies to dork, since I've no doubt chased more women away from this thread.

If you believe that, I invite you to read "McCain: The Myth of a Maverick", published last year. Excellent book. Written by Matt Welch, editor-in-chief of Reason Magazine, which is an excellent libertarian publication.

Since Welch is rather a staunch libertarian, do you believe that might have some influence on whether he believes McCain is a maverick or not?

Please don't play "my dick is bigger than yours," because I guarantee your dick is not as big as you think it is.



Wow, you took a single quote completely out of context. You must be an Obama supporter.

There's a great comeback to your post that would surely net me a suspension, but might be worth it in your case. Oh well.

So your beef is that you student loans are too much and you decided to live somewhere you cannot afford?

Our family income has gone up drastically over the last five years. Our tax burden has gone up as well. The thing is - we still have way more money than we did before even with the extra taxes. Perhaps you are on that threshold. Sounds like if taxes are hurting you that badly, you are living above your means.

Since Welch is rather a staunch libertarian, do you believe that might have some influence on whether he believes McCain is a maverick or not?

The book would probably present a more fair viewpoint than if it was written by say, Gwen Ifil.

LEt's say you are making over $1 million per year. You don't think you qualify as rich and you don't expect to pay a higher rate of income tax?making - income or net assets (http://nugent-economics.blogspot.com/2008/03/income-vs-wealth.html)?

Wow, you took a single quote completely out of context. You must be an Obama supporter.

There's a great comeback to your post that would surely net me a suspension, but might be worth it in your case. Oh well.

I took the same quote too because it was outlandish.

making - income or net assets (http://nugent-economics.blogspot.com/2008/03/income-vs-wealth.html)?

I was speaking of income. :shrug:

People don't vote their heart anymore, they vote their wallet or worse.

I believe I will have less money [...] under Obama.nice

oh, and...He likes to think I'm rich, for one. His tax plan doesn't take into account the fact I might make alot of money but have a high mortgage and student loan payments to cover. What I pay in SL debt and mortgage a year is more than most people on this board make, I guarantee it.
"Likes to think?" Really? If what you say is the case, I don't care how much debt you have, you are fucking rich, okay?

Wow, you took a single quote completely out of context. You must be an Obama supporter.

If there's a context for that quote that doesn't make you sound like a pretentious jerk who wants everyone to know that he's got a lot of money I'd love to hear it. Like you, I would be worse off (at least in terms of my annual tax bill) under the Obama plan than the McCain plan. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to tell everyone that I am way richer than them, and they couldn't possibly understand how incredibly difficult it is to be so privileged.

So your beef is that you student loans are too much and you decided to live somewhere you cannot afford?

Our family income has gone up drastically over the last five years. Our tax burden has gone up as well. The thing is - we still have way more money than we did before even with the extra taxes. Perhaps you are on that threshold. Sounds like if taxes are hurting you that badly, you are living above your means.

So only rich people should live in cities? What a bizarre argument. I've lived in DC for my entire life, it's not like i came here to "live the high life". In your word view, I can either live fine where I want to or rich where I don't. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Not once did I say I was living above my means. You are inferring that to your own detriment.

In Obama's world there are the rich and the not rich. There's no middle ground. You either fall below his threshold or you are above it. I'm treated just the same as a millionaire. I shouldn't be because I'm not.

Given the likelihood of Obama's election, I'm giving serious thought to leaving this "high paying" (tongue in cheek) job and taking a lesser salaried job just to fall below his threshold. Hell, I might even end up with more money at the end of the day.

Obama's tax policies aren't rational. They are just you are or are not.

I would pay more in taxes simply by my benefit of making more, but I shouldn't be taxed at a greatly increased rate just because of it.

I took the same quote too because it was outlandish.

It wasn't meant to be, but I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt.

If there's a context for that quote that doesn't make you sound like a pretentious jerk who wants everyone to know that he's got a lot of money I'd love to hear it. Like you, I would be worse off (at least in terms of my annual tax bill) under the Obama plan than the McCain plan. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to tell everyone that I am way richer than them, and they couldn't possibly understand how incredibly difficult it is to be so privileged.

Well you've certainly made up your mind about things. Since apparently you need to be a pretentious jerk while telling me I'm the same, I guess the best thing to do is just put you on ignore since I really don't care what your opinion of me is.

If you are freaking out about the additional taxes that much that you HATE someone, it sounds like you are worrying about money an awful lot.

BTW, pretty much everyone in my neighborhood (except me) commutes to New York City. It's 70 miles. That's what people do when they can't afford to live there.

Do you guys think this "terrorist" talk will have much negative effect on Obama? Or will it more be a negative effect on McCain, because it makes him look desperate since he's only bringing this up now that he's...well, desperate.

He likes to think I'm rich, for one. His tax plan doesn't take into account the fact I might make alot of money but have a high mortgage and student loan payments to cover. What I pay in SL debt and mortgage a year is more than most people on this board make, I guarantee it.

Doesn't McCain's interpretation of midde-class sort of stretch the definition?

I don't like his health care plan, which I get to pay for.

What is your current healthcare plan. And would it really change if Obama's alternative was enacted?

I really don't like his views of national security and the war. I don't support the Iraq war, but we are there and we need a rational exit strategy and his ain't it. His inability to recognize the progress we've made there is characteristic of a stubborness that will likely highlight his presidency.

Obama's plan to leave Iraq isn't immediate. It's a gradual decline which takes about 18 months, I believe.

Are you ok with US troops dying? Do you think it's worth it? Do you think Iraq was--or let's even stretch it further--is a current threat to the US? If so, explain.

I don't think he stands for anything but buzz words without meaning. Hope, change, what do these mean to Obama? If you question it, you are against it. Sounds pretty gestapo to me.

I think many of us former Republicans would say if you questioned the Bush Administration, you were against it, and were called traitors, cowards, even terrorists.

I believe I will have less money, less rights, and less feeling of national security under Obama. I don't feel he's equipped to deal with the several crises this country is facing and will only make a bad situation much much worse.

Obama seems, to me at least, to be a uniter. Obama's speeches have been about bringing people together. McCain and Palin have only talked about how the other party is evil and bad.

The Bush Administration and McCain have only been dividers. McCain's current campaign demonstrates this. Obama has no choice but to retaliate. You actually condone Palin saying Obama pals around with terrorists? I mean really. That's Un-American. Calling someone a terrorist is like calling your mother a whore. You just don't do it. Unless--in the unfortunate case--you have evidence.

How do you unite a country when you call the Presidential candidate of your opposing party...a terrorist?

However, I readily recognize that either candidate, given the current state of affairs, will lose by winning. Some will cost us more than others.

True, each of us will lose something. But I think we need to give Obama a shot. He certainly cannot make things worse, can he? You really think Obama is going to put the US at risk even more than what the US already is?

Do you guys think this "terrorist" talk will have much negative effect on Obama? Or will it more be a negative effect on McCain, because it makes him look desperate since he's only bringing this up now that he's...well, desperate.


I think the people to whom it was directed - independent voters who haven't yet made up their minds - are sick of both Obama and McCain's personal attacks. I think the person who attacks the other loudest and most often will lose those votes. So far that's McCain.

Do you guys think this "terrorist" talk will have much negative effect on Obama? Or will it more be a negative effect on McCain, because it makes him look desperate since he's only bringing this up now that he's...well, desperate.

It's only going to re-affirm the supporters of McCain and Palin. If Obama sticks to economy blows to McCain, McCain may lose some votes.

Maybe Obama could start creating some nursing home ads, stating even McCain would qualify under his healthcare plan. :)

I think the people to whom it was directed - independent voters who haven't yet made up their minds - are sick of both Obama and McCain's personal attacks. I think the person who attacks the other loudest and most often will lose those votes. So far that's McCain.

Agreed. It's coming off as pathetic. Not to mention the fact that McCain being one of the Keating Five is worse to me than Obama associating with a former "domestic terrorist"

(and btw Josh, I don't like Obama either. I'm either voting for Barr or I'm not voting)

If you are freaking out about the additional taxes that much that you HATE someone, it sounds like you are worrying about money an awful lot.

BTW, everyone in my neighborhood (except me pretty much) commutes to New York City. It's 70 miles. That's what people do when they can't afford to live closer.

I couldn't afford to live in New York either. I live plenty far from where I work, it takes me about 45 mins. each way round trip. Even people living in Manassas, VA, which is a lifetime away from DC, can probably barely afford to live there. Sprawl takes on a whole new meaning in DC.

I hated Obama long before I really looked at his tax plan. I said why earlier. To recap:

* He stands for nothing
* He doesn't tolerate dissent
* Tax plan
* Views on abortion
* Opinion of the war and withdraw
* Links to radicals (and I think Ayers think is BS personally)
* Links to corporations like F/F (McCain has them too, just not as bad)
* Nice house Barack, it cost less than mine
* Inability to state the truth about his record

There's others too.

And as for worrying about money an awful lot...looking at the world economy, I'd hardly be alone.

Conditions on the ground (not a timetable) should determine our withdrawal from Iraq.

I think the people to whom it was directed - independent voters who haven't yet made up their minds - are sick of both Obama and McCain's personal attacks. I think the person who attacks the other loudest and most often will lose those votes.

I wish you were correct, but I don't believe you are. I believe negative campaigning works - maybe not as much as it does with the partisans, but it works with the independents - many of whom are really partisans.

(and btw Josh, I don't like Obama either. I'm either voting for Barr or I'm not voting)

I've always liked you :rock:

So only rich people should live in cities? What a bizarre argument. I've lived in DC for my entire life, it's not like i came here to "live the high life". In your word view, I can either live fine where I want to or rich where I don't. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Not once did I say I was living above my means. You are inferring that to your own detriment.

In Obama's world there are the rich and the not rich. There's no middle ground. You either fall below his threshold or you are above it. I'm treated just the same as a millionaire. I shouldn't be because I'm not.

Given the likelihood of Obama's election, I'm giving serious thought to leaving this "high paying" (tongue in cheek) job and taking a lesser salaried job just to fall below his threshold. Hell, I might even end up with more money at the end of the day.

Obama's tax policies aren't rational. They are just you are or are not.

I would pay more in taxes simply by my benefit of making more, but I shouldn't be taxed at a greatly increased rate just because of it.

Do you live in the District (as you say in this post) or in Virginia (as you say elsewhere)?

Do you support a flat tax (as you say elsewhere) or do you think you should be taxed at a lower rate than someone making a million dollars (as you say here)?

Since Senator Obama is not proposing to raise any tax rates above 100%, it is literally impossible that you could take a lower paying job and walk away with more money. That is not how income taxes work in this country. You are so irate -- to the point where you have expressed hatred for someone based on their tax policies -- about something you clearly do not understand.

Do you guys think this "terrorist" talk will have much negative effect on Obama? Or will it more be a negative effect on McCain, because it makes him look desperate since he's only bringing this up now that he's...well, desperate.

Anyone who uses the "Obama is a muslim" or "Obama/Osama" or this ridiculous connection to Ayers as an attempt to categorize Obama as a threat to America is a total idiot (and that includes any role McCain may have had in it).

Obama is a loyal American who loves his country. That should be clear to anyone.

Doesn't McCain's interpretation of midde-class sort of stretch the definition?

We as a nation have been stretching the definition of the middle class for quite some time. I think people just don't like to use words like poor or rich.

What is your current healthcare plan. And would it really change if Obama's alternative was enacted?

Through my employer, which doesn't bode well for a McCain presidency.

Obama's plan to leave Iraq isn't immediate. It's a gradual decline which takes about 18 months, I believe.

I don't believe in a timetable.

Are you ok with US troops dying? Do you think it's worth it? Do you think Iraq was--or let's even stretch it further--is a current threat to the US? If so, explain.

Every life spent in Iraq is a wasted American life. I love the US Solider and their sacrifice to this country. I follow the Nicholson view "either man a post or say thank you". Based on the intelligence presented at the time, Iraq was a threat. At this point, an unstable Iraq is a threat to the region, not us. But we are there, and we have to fix it, even if we broke it.

I think many of us former Republicans would say if you questioned the Bush Administration, you were against it, and were called traitors, cowards, even terrorists.

And that's why Bush will go down as the worst president ever and likely forever.

Obama seems, to me at least, to be a uniter. Obama's speeches have been about bringing people together. McCain and Palin have only talked about how the other party is evil and bad.

What? Obama's speeches are about as polarizing as can be. We don't need another 4 like the last 8. Bush/Cheney/McCain. Bush has hurt this country. Obama is as bad or worse than McCain in terms of negative speech.

The Bush Administration and McCain have only been dividers. McCain's current campaign demonstrates this. Obama has no choice but to retaliate.

See above.

You actually condone Palin saying Obama pals around with terrorists? I mean really. That's Un-American. Calling someone a terrorist is like calling your mother a whore. You just don't do it. Unless--in the unfortunate case--you have evidence.

I made it pretty clear how ridiculous that is. Obama is a loyal American, my opinion of him has never been anything but.

True, each of us will lose something. But I think we need to give Obama a shot. He certainly cannot make things worse, can he? You really think Obama is going to put the US at risk even more than what the US already is?

See DVDP, this one of my biggest problems with Obama - giving him a shot. Why? Just because he's NOT Bush? That's not a reason to vote for someone. McCain isn't Bush either, and neither is Barr for that matter, or me (although I'm too young to run). I do think that Obama will make this country worse, or be unprepared with the right ideas to stop it from getting worse on its own.

Red Dog mentioned that people should vote with their brains. Voting for Obama because "why not" is the antithesis of that.

We should vote with our brains, but don't you think this election is more about getting as far as away as possible from the damage the US has encountered over the last 8 years? Isn't this a normal reaction from most Americans? You can only get burned so many times.

McCain still supports most of Bush's policies, so why vote for somebody who has a higher chance of going back to Bush's administration?

You say you don't believe in a timetable for the Iraq War. Is that logical? How much money and US lives will it take before you say, "Ok, we've done enough. Let's go home." What disturbs most Americans, is a leader who doesn't draw the line or refuses to do so because of unrealistic expectations.

What about Afghanistan? Bush left this country wide open and jumped for Iraq. Now, we have both countries which are unstable. Should we invade more countries and use more of our US Troops to occupy them in the name of Terrorism?

True, we started Iraq, but we've also given Iraq ample time to get their act together. We've given them a shitload of money, and they are enjoying it. It's time to get them off the US Titty, and to let them survive on their own.

We made one mistake by invading Iraq. We made a second mistake by occupying Iraq. Why should we go for the trifecta of mistakes by staying there indefinitely.

Iraq has many parallels to Vietnam, and I don't think we left there all that properly either. We can't just leave. It has to be secure and we have to make sure that we are turning the country over to people who can ensure its safety and the safety of its neighbors. I don't know how long it's going to take, but we can't just say "18 months".

I don't want to invade any more countries. Knowing what I know now, I wish we didn't invade this one. But it's unrealistic expectations to think that just by stating a deadline, the Iraqis will all the sudden get their shit together. I wish it were that simple.

The economy has much to do with the democrats. Frank and Pelosi have done their fair share to fuck things up, but don't seem willing at all to take responsibility other than to point the finger. O'Reilly was right to call Frank out (maybe not to act like a crazy person in doing so), but Frank needed to be. And Pelosi is the worst speaker we've had in a long time, only she can't do as much damage as Bush, but she's sure trying her best.

I simply don't believe McCain is Bush. But the democrats shouldn't be so quick to be the "not Bush" party because when they enjoy control of the WH and Congress, and things don't get better fast, they will be held accountable even more so.

Since Welch is rather a staunch libertarian, do you believe that might have some influence on whether he believes McCain is a maverick or not?


He'd probably give a fairer assessment than say a Democrat. At least a Democrat since he won the nomination.

As for the comparison, I've not read Welch's book, but I've read bits of it on Reason and other materials by Welch on the subject. I think he is correct for the most part. I think there are 2 main differences btwn Bush and McCain. One is on judicial nominees - I don't believe McCain when he says Roberts and Alito are model SCt justices. I believe he would favor centrists who would uphold his legacy legislation. Two - I believe he is more of a hawk than Bush.

The real maverick in the U. S. Senate is Tom Coburn (R/OK).

He's not as much a maverick as he was in the House, but he still holds the title.

Coburn is a maverick because he pisses off everybody. ;)

Why should the US not be able to invade other countries? What if Somalia becomes the new Afghanistan? What if Yemen is the new base of attacks for Al Qaida? The US should be able to invade a country if it's security has been compromised and the Iraq war is preventing it from doing so.

Afghanistan needs money and security provided by NATO and US forces, not major combat operations. What's the point of opening hospitals if there's little medical equipment and babies have to share incubators? The fact that the Taliban, Saudis, and the Afghan Govt. are working on a treaty, which Saudi Arabia has said that it will "go with alone" points to the ineptitude of the current policies which would extend with a McCain Administration.

If it's a question of whether McCain is another Bush, why is it that he agreed with the sentiments of Iraq's connection with 9/11? Why was he supportive of Rumsfeld when it was obvious there was no strategy other than making sure the Iraqis had an election?

Afghanistan needs money and security provided by NATO and US forces, not major combat operations.

I suppose that would depend on what you mean by 'major combat operations.'

The U. S. should consider military action only if a vital national interest is present. And, all other steps to resolve the problem have failed. Then and only then, should the U.S. engage in military action.

Senator McCain's got closer ties to an unrepentant terrorist (G. Gordon Liddy) than Senator Obama does to Ayers. Senator McCain's got closer ties to a dirtier white collar criminal (Charles Keating) than Senator Obama does to Rezko. And to top it all off, Governor Palin's husband was apparently a secessionist for most of the 90s; I'm pretty sure we fought a civil war over that shit.

So, you don't like a criminal like Liddy, because he broke into an office and was accused of coming up with the IDEA of firebombing a building (some would say this was truly Chuck Colson).

However, a man who actually DID blow up buildings gets a pass.

:hscratch:

I haven't laughed at posts in a long time like I've laughed at DVD Josh's...

I'm rich, but I'm not because I have a "huge" Mortgage and student LOANS.

As far as $66k being more than most salarys on DT? Don't you know, everyone on here is a millionare? My GUEST House is bigger than your entire house, shoot my DOG has a $10K a month mortgage.

Go vote for McCain, as CRM said, "Welcome back home"

Perspective? This is a man who will be potentially (likely) in charge of this country for four years, who will impact my daily life on several levels. Maybe you lack the necessary perspective yourself.
This is a man you've never met, don't know anything about personally, and has never done anything to you or your loved ones.
I'm not loose with it. I despise the man in just about every regard. .
A pity you can't seperate political disagreement and personal "hatred." But that's your problem, not mine.

So, you don't like a criminal like Liddy, because he broke into an office and was accused of coming up with the IDEA of firebombing a building (some would say this was truly Chuck Colson).

However, a man who actually DID blow up buildings gets a pass.

:hscratch:

When did I give Ayers a pass?

Ayers is a true terrorist who never really paid for his crimes like he should have.

I have no problem with this coming up. I think many would be surprised how few people actually ARE aware of him.

I do agree the economy is a much bigger issue McCain should address...It was the Democrats who got many of the payoffs, they who said F/F were not in trouble six years ago and they should be held accountable for the economic problems of today. Also, raising taxes and social spending (while cutting defense spending) is not the way out of a crisis or to increase our influence in the world. The opposite, in fact.

I suppose that would depend on what you mean by 'major combat operations.'

The U. S. should consider military action only if a vital national interest is present. And, all other steps to resolve the problem have failed. Then and only then, should the U.S. engage in military action.

I don't disagree with your sentiments.

When I say "major combat operations," I mean use of heavy weaponry to destroy major infrastructure as to control the civilian population.

The U. S. should consider military action only if a vital national interest is present. And, all other steps to resolve the problem have failed. Then and only then, should the U.S. engage in military action.Just curious, do you consider Iran not getting a nuclear capability in our vital national interest?

I'm assuming DVD Josh makes over $250K per year. Obama plans to raise taxes on anyone over $250K.

Aren't we going to have to pay for these two wars and this bailout? Should we just continue to cut taxes and keep going further in debt? When will the American people accept their responsibility for this debt?

The Dems tax and spend. The Repubs borrow and spend.

Oh and Iraq is SO over. What are you waiting for? The government is in place, the streets are relatively calm, why are we sticking around? Why do you want to continue pouring money into that country (and not raise taxes)? They've asked us to leave, lets send some troops home and send the rest to Afghanistan. It's gone on long enough. Victory has been achieved. They are a democracy. Who they pick as their leaders may not be agreeable.

Obama is not setting a timetable. Obama is going to withdrawal from Iraq. And rightly so.

Please!

I'm not comparing adultery with murder.

I think you've managed to miss the point entirely.

Hogwash!

:lol:

Ayers is a true terrorist who never really paid for his crimes like he should have.

Well, thank God Ayers is a TRUE TERRORIST, and Al Sadr isn't. Let's bring Al Sadr and Bush up in a political ad.

The feds had to drop the charges against Ayers because they improperly surveilled him (illegal wiretaps) and his wife. If you're going to prosecute a terrorist...do it properly and within the boundaries of the law, thanks.

You also have to think about the time period. Tens of thousands US soldiers dead. For what. While I don't agree with Ayers' way of expressing himself, he could be thought of more of a patriot than a terrorist.

A patriot stands up to his country even while embracing it, and tells the governing body when they are wrong. A patriot doesn't always go along with what the government says. Some of you might want to remember this when you wear a uniform.

Patriots, believe it or not, were loyal to the British Government, though not "loyalists" in the sense, but disagreed with them on certain laws--taxation being in the forefront.

Ayers has also been a community activist in Chicago. So, it isn't a stretch to find Obama crossing paths with him. In fact, Ayers has written a book on education and juvenile justice, more specifically about how juveniles are stamped with "fail" once they enter the system, and can't shake the label. Obama even mentioned what Ayers had said in his book about juvenile justice system reform.

So, What I'd like to know here and now...is where the evidence is of Obama associating with a terrorist. I want to have dates and times to show a regular meeting, to demonstrate there was a consistent pattern. Can you or anyone provide them? And let's say you can. What did Obama and Ayers do which was so dangerous to America?

Or do you simply take Sarah Palin's word for it. After all, she's one smart hooter.

Finally, Ayers turned himself in to authorities in 1980. The charges were dropped. He was officially not a terrorist once the charges were dropped. So, when Obama met him after that date, he was not associating with a terrorist. Isn't that correct? I mean, if you are legally not bound to an accusation, should not that accusation be lifted from your record? So what I'm getting at is, would Obama associate himself with a person who was a domestic terrorist during times of massive civil unrest or was he meeting with a man who was more an education reformist who put his radical past behind him?

Maybe Obama met with Ayers before 1980? Sure, I'm game. I'd love to debate that one.

Maybe we even have fabulous Obama footage with Ayers during the Days of Rage riots.

Obama is not setting a timetable. Obama is going to withdrawal from Iraq. And rightly so.


I have no idea what Obama's Iraq policy is today.

He's flip-flopped so many times on it, it's hard to keep up with it.

I consider the entire Persian Gulf area to be a vital national interest of the United States.

I consider the entire Persian Gulf area to be a vital national interest of the United States.That doesn't exactly answer the question.

Do you consider Iran not getting a nuclear capability in our vital national interest?

Well, thank God Ayers is a TRUE TERRORIST, and Al Sadr isn't. Let's bring Al Sadr and Bush up in a political ad.

You have an interesting notion of foreign policy. You're an international realist (short-term US interest, all the way!) who cannot fathom dealing temporarily with undesirable people. How does that work?

http://www.wright.edu/~mark.willis/genome/images/hussein_rumsfeld.jpg

http://www.wright.edu/~mark.willis/genome/images/hussein_rumsfeld.jpg


:lol: We supported Saddam at one time, and we all know that it means that no matter what he did later, even decades later, we are to blame for anything he did. It's smart to think so.

I have no idea what Obama's Iraq policy is today.

He's flip-flopped so many times on it, it's hard to keep up with it.

Next thing you know, he'll be advocating off shore drilling. Oh wait, he did. :lol:

Next thing you know, he'll be advocating off shore drilling. Oh wait, he did. :lol:

Flip (once) and flop (twice). Isn't that going back and forth twice? Sorry, maybe I'm the one confused.

I have no idea what Obama's Iraq policy is today.

He's flip-flopped so many times on it, it's hard to keep up with it.

Yes, like you, it's good for politicians to never change their mind about positions. Why don't we elect classicman2 to office. :lol:

Next thing you know, he'll be advocating off shore drilling. Oh wait, he did. :lol:
Personally, the ability to change one's mind in the face of new/evolving facts is something I want in a politician.

Looks like the Obama camp is hitting back. I would check the AP's trash for Obama campaign check stubs. This thing reads like a DNC press release.

McCain linked to private group in Iran-Contra case (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20081007/D93LGU1O0.html) By PETE YOST


WASHINGTON (AP) - GOP presidential nominee John McCain has past connections to a private group that supplied aid to guerrillas seeking to overthrow the leftist government of Nicaragua in the Iran-Contra affair.

McCain's ties are facing renewed scrutiny after his campaign criticized Barack Obama for his link to a former radical who engaged in violent acts 40 years ago.

The U.S. Council for World Freedom was part of an international organization linked to former Nazi collaborators and ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America. The group was dedicated to stamping out communism around the globe.

The council's founder, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Singlaub, said McCain became associated with the organization in the early 1980s as McCain was launching his political career in Arizona. Singlaub said McCain was a supporter but not an active member in the group.

"McCain was a new guy on the block learning the ropes," Singlaub told The Associated Press in an interview. "I think I met him in the Washington area when he was just a new congressman. We had McCain on the board to make him feel like he wasn't left out. It looks good to have names on a letterhead who are well-known and appreciated.

"I don't recall talking to McCain at all on the work of the group," Singlaub said.

The renewed attention over McCain's association with Singlaub's group comes as McCain's campaign steps up criticism of Obama's dealings with William Ayers, a college professor who co-founded the Weather Underground and years later worked on education reform in Chicago alongside Obama. Ayers held a meet-the-candidate event at his home when Obama first ran for public office in the mid-1990s.

Obama was roughly 8 years old when Ayers, now at the University of Illinois at Chicago, was working with the Weather Underground, which took responsibility for bombings that included nonfatal blasts at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol. McCain's vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, has said that Obama "pals around with terrorists."

In McCain's case, Singlaub knew McCain's father, a Navy admiral who had sought Singlaub's counsel when McCain, a Navy pilot, became a prisoner of war and spent 5 1/2 years in North Vietnamese hands.

"John's father asked me for advice about what he ought to do now that his son had been shot down and captured," Singlaub recalled in one of two recent interviews. "I said, 'As long as you don't give any impression that you care more about him than you care about any of the other prisoners, he won't be treated any differently.'"

Covert arms shipments to the rebels called Contras, financed in part by secret arms sales to Iran, became known as the Iran-Contra affair. They proved to be the undoing of Singlaub's council.

In 1987, the Internal Revenue Service withdrew the tax-exempt status of Singlaub's group because of its activities on behalf of the Contras.

Elected to the House in 1982 and at a time when he was on the board of Singlaub's council, McCain was among Republicans on Capitol Hill expressing support for the Contras, a CIA-organized guerrilla force in Central America. In 1984, Congress cut off CIA funds for the Contras.

Months before the cutoff, top Reagan administration officials ramped up a secret White House-directed supply network and put National Security Council aide Oliver North in charge of running it. The goal was to keep the Contras operational until Congress could be persuaded to resume CIA funding.

Singlaub's private group became the public cover for the White House operation.

Secretly, Singlaub worked with North in an effort to raise millions of dollars from foreign governments.

McCain has said previously he resigned from the council in 1984 and asked in 1986 to have his name removed from the group's letterhead.

"I didn't know whether (the group's activity) was legal or illegal, but I didn't think I wanted to be associated with them,"