All Political Posts Go Here!

[GoS]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

First off, there were quite a few timeline errors just in the first four paragraphs. Also, McCain acknowledges that he was an asshole before being captured, he's written about most of it. No surprises there. At the RNC he said that he always put himself first before his capture.

Where was this published anyway?

I don't know, but whoever did should be sued. That is a llllllllllllllllllllllllong article!!!

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by GoS

I don't know, but whoever did should be sued. That is a llllllllllllllllllllllllong article!!!

A lot of this stuff in here has been debunked, like the "****" remark, or it is completely unsubstantiated. Supposedly two reporters overheard the remark, but they have never written anything about it. I spent about an hour looking for it when I first heard it and all I could find were articles that reference the incident, but no one has anything other than second hand knowledge or hearsay about it. None of this stuff appears in even MSNBC, the Obama house organ. There's just material about them hearing it, that's it. This is basically a compilation of nasty rumors without the benefit of a fact-checker or editor. I check snopes on some of this stuff and a lot of it just plain isn't true.

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Basically, Chicago is corrupt. When hasn't it been?

Okay, watch this then:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/9596/meet-...ovember-9-1997

Clinton used the exact same reasons to go to war on this episode of Meet the Press that Bush iterated six years later. Given that this was 1997, according to what you are saying, that means that somehow while Bush was governor of Texas he must have lied to Bill Clinton too, 6 years earlier. Clinton must have listened to Bush over his own Secretary of State, his own National Security Advisor, over all of the foreign policy experts under his employ, just to listen to the then governor of Texas. Bush must have lied to the Russians, British and French 6 years before starting the war too. That position that "Bush lied" has been disproven to the point of ridiculousness. How can anyone watch Bill Clinton say the exact same thing as Bush six years earlier and still maintain that Bush lied? Yours is a common, but not a defendable position, it's just one that sounds great on a bumper sticker. Unfortunately, what goes on bumper stickers often passes for truth. Goebbles would be proud of American politics. We repeat lies (such as the one that "Bush lied") that they sound like the truth despite overwhelming facts that contradict popular opinion.

Give me an example of McCain race baiting. He hasn't done it. What I do see are Obama surrogates using race as an excuse in case he loses. Do a google search and you'll see a ton of articles on the subject. McCain has not mentioned his race once.

The simple act of allowing some redneck to yell out "terrorist" when McCain mentioned Obama at his rally and not even bothering to respond is implicitly race baiting..Why does Palin keep repeating terrorist and Obama interminably if they were not trying to get people to make that connection ..please it's all too clear what they are attempting to do ..just despicable.What I did say was that Bush started the Iraqi war on false pretenses we know that to be a fact and I never knew that Clinton starting the Iraqi war!.What a revelation. Now excuse me while I go water my orange grass with dry water.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

The simple act of allowing some redneck to yell out "terrorist" when McCain mentioned Obama at his rally and not even bothering to respond is implicitly race baiting..Why does Palin keep repeating terrorist and Obama interinminably if they were not trying to get people to make that connection ..please it's all too clear what they are attempting to do ..just despicable.What I did say was that Bush started the Iraqi war on false pretenses we know that to be a fact and I never knew that Clinton starting the Iraqi war!.What a revelation. Now excuse me while I go water my orange grass with dry water.

I think McCain was too nice for too long. A redneck shouting terrorist at Obama is just some guy exercising his right to speak. So what?! Fact is, Obama has had extensive connections to real terrorists (William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn) that he is downplaying and not telling the truth about. Not ALL terrorists are Muslim or even Arab. How about Adam Gadhan? He's a white guy, but he happens to be a Muslim terrorist. McCain and Palin never mentioned Obama's race. If you think it's implied, it is in the mind of the beholder.

You completely missed what I said about Clinton. The "false pretenses" were clearly iterated by Clinton as well. So, either both are lying, or both were mistaken. Either way, you cannot solely lay it at the feet of Bush without doing the same for Clinton. You definately did not watch the video I posted a link to. It's Tim Russert interviewing Clinton for Meet the Press back in 1997, where Clinton clearly states that "we know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction". It was obviously not "manufactured" by Bush if Clinton said the same thing six years earlier. Maybe you take the Marty McFly Doc Brown theory that they transported Bush back in time to impersonate Clinton, so it can only be Bush that propogated the faulty intelligence? Maybe there's an explanation that this is Meet the Press from an alternate dimension. I guess anything to hate Bush despite those darn stubborn facts. This is getting ridiculous.

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by GoS

C) Obama and Ayers are not the closest of friends and have not seen each other in years. You make it sound like Obama calls him at the end of the day to talk about what happened that day.

I am not a Republican, though I don't see why it would matter to anyone if I were (my parents are... and I love them). That said, the Ayers/Obama connection is highly significant.

As I understand: Ayers appointed Obama to diseminate money he (Ayers) received for use by the CAC -- a Chicago Community education initiative. Also as has been reported (I can cite Dick Morris on last night's Hannity & Colmes): Those iniatives served the purpose of not encouraging education in math, science. . . the three R's (Reading, wRiting, and 'Rithmitic), but rather encouraged political and community activism.

To me -- and I could be wrong -- that translates as indoctrination of inner city (poor or minority) youth, establishing an electoral base for the Democratic Party and an army of Democratic Party volunteers. I construct this scenario based on the Ayers-Obama relationship because 1. it is consistent with Ayers' admitted Communist beliefs and 2. because Ayers either chose or approved of Obama's role in the CAC -- which Obama either agreed with (1.) or was taking advantage of for personal political advancement. It is, after all, Chicago.

This where the media fears to tread. And I mean ALL THE MEDIA. Even the McCain Campaign. Because if the above is true, as has been reported, THEN, all of Obama's proposed initiatives as President must be put under new scrutiny.

I cite as one, Obama's proposed expansion of Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives. In this expansion, Obama requires that for faith-based organizations to receive funding for for specific programs, those programs must not have any overt religious component nor can religious preference be made in hiring for said programs. In other words, Obama's supposed expansion of Faith-Based Initiatives is actually a way for Obama to transfer public funds (taxes) to partisan, SECULAR activities.

It was to the above referenced expansion of Faith-Based Initiatives that Jesse Jackson was referring in his now infamous, live mic incident:

"See, Barack's been talking down to black people on this faith-based -- I want to cut his (DELETED) off. Barack, he's talking down to black people."

Indeed, as I understand the proposal, Obama is talking down to black people, to Christians, to all religious Americans, to all taxpayers. Yet, the expansion of Faith-Based Initiatives is consistent with Obama's methods of shoring up political power, indoctrinating the electorate, and establishing secular influence of the government that can be traced back to his relationship in Chicago with Ayers.

NOW, some people may agree with these programs and support them. That's fine. It's just best that Obama honestly propose them -- i.e., not talk down to people -- and that people honestly defend his proposals.

For me: as a Liberal who supports sometimes "liberal" or "progressive" and even "radical" ideas and policies, I find this reprehensible. I believe in redistribution of wealth because, unlike Obama who espouses the cliche that if you work hard you will have access to the American dream, I believe that wealth is not distributed equitably in this country. I believe that racism does indeed make the system unfair. And, consequently, I believe that the government can -- and should -- play a role in evening out the balance, in ways both fiscal, by redistributing wealth from those who benefit from an unfair system (like myself) directly to underprivileged people, and intellectual, by providing access to ALL citizens to education and information, with a radical emphasis on imagination and individual thought.

And don't even get me started on the bail-out. . .

[GoS]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

I am not a Republican, though I don't see why it would matter to anyone if I were (my parents are... and I love them). That said, the Ayers/Obama connection is highly significant.

I don't think that should be an issue either (if I have joked about being a Republican I never meant to offend only to poke fun at how bad politics are these days).

If what you said in the rest of you post is true, then I think that it should be looked into. I have read several different account of the relationship from a variety of sources and can't find anything that would prove/disprove the issues you raised. I am not an expert on Dick Morris, but after a quick glance at his resumé and hearing that he is commonly on Fox News, I don't know how reliable this is.

I don't think there is a shortage of scandals, mis-spent money, or abuse of things for political gain that we can link to McCain as close or closer than this Ayers thing goes to Obama.

[Musicman408]

Alright, I'm sure most of us know it's on tonight. Who's watching, and what is our reaction??

I'm hoping Obama kills this.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

I am not a Republican, though I don't see why it would matter to anyone if I were (my parents are... and I love them). That said, the Ayers/Obama connection is highly significant.

As I understand: Ayers appointed Obama to diseminate money he (Ayers) received for use by the CAC -- a Chicago Community education initiative. Also as has been reported (I can cite Dick Morris on last night's Hannity & Colmes): Those iniatives served the purpose of not encouraging education in math, science. . . the three R's (Reading, wRiting, and 'Rithmitic), but rather encouraged political and community activism.

To me -- and I could be wrong -- that translates as indoctrination of inner city (poor or minority) youth, establishing an electoral base for the Democratic Party and an army of Democratic Party volunteers. I construct this scenario based on the Ayers-Obama relationship because 1. it is consistent with Ayers' admitted Communist beliefs and 2. because Ayers either chose or approved of Obama's role in the CAC -- which Obama either agreed with (1.) or was taking advantage of for personal political advancement. It is, after all, Chicago.

This where the media fears to tread. And I mean ALL THE MEDIA. Even the McCain Campaign. Because if the above is true, as has been reported, THEN, all of Obama's proposed initiatives as President must be put under new scrutiny.

I cite as one, Obama's proposed expansion of Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives. In this expansion, Obama requires that for faith-based organizations to receive funding for for specific programs, those programs must not have any overt religious component nor can religious preference be made in hiring for said programs. In other words, Obama's supposed expansion of Faith-Based Initiatives is actually a way for Obama to transfer public funds (taxes) to partisan, SECULAR activities.

It was to the above referenced expansion of Faith-Based Initiatives that Jesse Jackson was referring in his now infamous, live mic incident:

"See, Barack's been talking down to black people on this faith-based -- I want to cut his (DELETED) off. Barack, he's talking down to black people."

Indeed, as I understand the proposal, Obama is talking down to black people, to Christians, to all religious Americans, to all taxpayers. Yet, the expansion of Faith-Based Initiatives is consistent with Obama's methods of shoring up political power, indoctrinating the electorate, and establishing secular influence of the government that can be traced back to his relationship in Chicago with Ayers.

NOW, some people may agree with these programs and support them. That's fine. It's just best that Obama honestly propose them -- i.e., not talk down to people -- and that people honestly defend his proposals.

For me: as a Liberal who supports sometimes "liberal" or "progressive" and even "radical" ideas and policies, I find this reprehensible. I believe in redistribution of wealth because, unlike Obama who espouses the cliche that if you work hard you will have access to the American dream, I believe that wealth is not distributed equitably in this country. I believe that racism does indeed make the system unfair. And, consequently, I believe that the government can -- and should -- play a role in evening out the balance, in ways both fiscal, by redistributing wealth from those who benefit from an unfair system (like myself) directly to underprivileged people, and intellectual, by providing access to ALL citizens to education and information, with a radical emphasis on imagination and individual thought.

And don't even get me started on the bail-out. . .

Fantastic analysis and I am apalled that even McCain isn't looking at this further, the only place I disagree with you here is that I still believe that hard work will ultimately bring you success in this country. It's just you have to make sure what you're working on is something that is a well trodden path to success. One example is an old friend of mine who installs windows. Working really hard at installing windows will only get you so far. After a while, you still need an education in something that pays well to succeed. People who don't succeed usually work really hard at the wrong thing. I'm not speaking tritely here, I was actually homeless twice until I figured out what I was doing wasn't working.

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by GoS

I don't think there is a shortage of scandals, mis-spent money, or abuse of things for political gain that we can link to McCain as close or closer than this Ayers thing goes to Obama.

So far the smear tactics have had little impact anyway..McCain is terrible on the economy. As the market is in free fall so will his campaign go...good riddance.

[ajmccarrell]

Unfortunately, Obama is only as good as his teleprompter. This is McCain's domain, but he's been fumbling around lately so much I don't really have any high hopes for anything. Unfortunately, the sound bytes from debates do little to slake the thirst of my curiosity for specifics. Neither candidate is particularly good at them. I'd REALLY like McCain to hammer on the real economic consequences of his tax hike for the rich and tax cut for the poor. I was listening to an economist earlier, who also echoed my own thoughts, that since 40% of the 95% that Obama mentioned do not pay taxes already, that the whole model is too top heavy and would lead to cost push inflation and rising prices that far outweigh any tax savings seen. Plus, the deficit would likely increase because of the steep drop in business activity after such a hike. I'm not sure why more people don't get this.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

So far the smear tactics have had little impact anyway..McCain is terrible on the economy. As the market is in free fall so will his campaign go...good riddance.

So far, Arthur Laffer, Paul Krugman, Ben Stein, Walter Williams, and Stephen Moore would disagree with you. All of them are unanimous in saying that Obama's tax cut and hike plans would cause massive cost push inflation, which would lead to higher prices, larger deficits, and ultimately depression. Believe me, this can get much worse. If he actually enacts what he plans on doing, it will make today seem like the good ol' days. I'd be happy to take some time and go through the mathematic models if you would like.

Oh yeah, this morning also McCain is up four points in the CBS and Gallup polls from yesterday. He back to being within .2% of the margin of error. It's far from over.

[ashton]

I doubt that many will be watching the debates. They get rather old after the first two. People's minds are pretty much made up at this point.

I will skip it. If I later have the desire to hear some old man babbling the same old lines that I have heard repeatedly, I will just look for an Archie Bunker re-run.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by ashton

I doubt that many will be watching the debates. They get rather old after the first two. People's minds are pretty much made up at this point.

I will skip it. If I later have the desire to hear some old man babbling the same old lines that I have heard repeatedly, I will just look for an Archie Bunker re-run.

What will you do with your evening?

[slowdancer]

During the first debate, McCain never looked at Obama and did not refer to him by his first name. On the other hand, Obama kept calling McCain John and looked at him when he spoke to him. I wondered while watching if McCain would treat heads of state the same way, especially if he didn't agree with them. Obama showed the older man respect, but McCain's behaviour was borish. Obama shows he is in command of his emotions which makes him look more presidential compared to McCain's uptight and disdainful performance. Obama thinks and then acts, while McCain looks as if anything might set that famous temper of his off.

On the issues, McCain says he isn't a Washington insider and yet he has been there for 26 years. He is for the bailout but doesn't want to regulate anything, hence the financial crisis. If he and Palin are so against big government, where was McCain while Congress gave the current administration carte blanche to do what ever they wanted: increasing the national debt, invading a country that did not attack us, and on and on. We all know the rest. McCain and his party have weakened America. I'm hoping that Obama will be tough with McCain tonight, linking him over and over to the failed policies of the Bush/Cheney administration. Also McCain has never supported a woman's right to choose.

Obama will make the difference if elected, like the Kennedys and Martin Luther King did back in the 60s. McCain still wants to win the war in Vietnam and he sees "victory" in Iraq as a way to salvage our honor. He sees every thing in black or white. He thinks with his gut, like Bush does and his choice of Palin was purely political and an insult to intelligent men and women everywhere. She is all style and no substance.

McCain can't talk about his record because it puts him in bed with Bush, so he and Palin have to resort to character assassination and they have already started. But Obama is better than these two hacks and he needs to be aggressive and hit back hard tonight, especially going after McCain and his connection to the Keating Five
debacle.

Didn't mean to write all this, but I feel there is so much at stake and we need a young and energetic leader who is full of promise and hope. And we need a seasoned statesman like Biden by his side.

[GoS]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

So far, Arthur Laffer, Paul Krugman, Ben Stein, Walter Williams, and Stephen Moore would disagree with you. All of them are unanimous in saying that Obama's tax cut and hike plans would cause massive cost push inflation, which would lead to higher prices, larger deficits, and ultimately depression. Believe me, this can get much worse. If he actually enacts what he plans on doing, it will make today seem like the good ol' days. I'd be happy to take some time and go through the mathematic models if you would like.

Oh yeah, this morning also McCain is up four points in the CBS and Gallup polls from yesterday. He back to being within .2% of the margin of error. It's far from over.

But come on, can you actually trust any of these polls? I don't.