McCain or Obama?

[Nickmick95]

Question: Why do you (some people) like McCain?

 

[Urwumpe]

Question: Why do you (some people) like McCain?

Though I prefer Obama, I must say that McCain has some important qualities, you have to respect. He is experienced, he has a pretty intact integrity, and he is no dogmatic republican - or even worse, a neo-con. He also seems to be pretty honest for a politician.

But his team sure lacks these qualities...

 

[fort]

Off topic but not so much.

It is not known if there were a problem concerning Spain or at least Zapatero ( Jose Luis, I believe ) but I found on a forum Franco Canadien ( Hetu ) this nice video (of a possible future colistière? , VP...) if that can help or to divert.

 

[Eagle]

It is not known if there were a problem concerning Spain or at least Zapatero ( Jose Luis, I believe ) but I found on a forum Franco Canadien ( Hetu ) this nice video (of a possible future colistière? , VP...) if that can help or to divert.

I suppose you are referring to this.

-----Posted Added-----


Maybe a more honest answer to "What do you think of x world leader?" would be "Haven't been."

 

[fort]

I read several English and French articles (in spite of my handicap in your language) on this subject. I have observed much this electoral campaign for a few weeks. Concerning this fact, I am a little without opinion. There are here two or three interpretations on behalf of the ones and others. I had found, simply this video amusing and not too except subject.

Remain the mystery of the matter of J Mc Cain. I do not suppose that it is to be taken as any objection with regard to Spain with respect to the fact that it withdrew its troops of Iraq and I read here and there that J Mc Cain knows, at least the name, J L Zapatero, that he already quoted in the past. But to tell the truth...I do not know.

Poor Norvegian...Lily will have to learn more.

Norway is near the roof of the world and i can understand that she can forgot it but, nevertheless, a roof, it's not nothing !

EDIT

The conclusions from CNN appear admissible to me.

 

[replicant]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/160179

I'm not interested in how McCain supporters respond -- it's easy for me to guess that. I'd like some genuine, non-argumentative explanations from real Obama supporters. Also, note that this article comes from the reliably left-leaning Newsweek, so I can't be accused of cherry-picking some crazed right-wing nutjob blog for this.

Let me be the first to give you the answer you seek greg. I know what Obama is doing with his statement. He is using the Karl Rove tactic of fear. He knows very well that for better or worse, it is the older generation who decides the outcome of elections. They are the ones who get out and vote in the largest numbers. Younger people are either too high, too lazy, too stupid, too busy getting laid, or too busy working to care or vote.

Is it an exaggeration, yes. An outright lie? maybe. Certainly it is wrong, but is it any more wrong than constantly harping on "I said no thanks to that bridge?" or if you vote for Obama the entire country will go instantly down a rathole and be run by demonizing, Jesus hating liberals who will force all your children to convert to Obama-Sama's unholy Islam? Yeah, the whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing. Please don't even attempt to tell me that is not an underlying message of McCain's campaign because I know you know better.

I simply see it as Obama has learned to use the fear tactics of Karl Rove on a group that he feels is a very important voting demographic. Do I like it? No. Is it enough to make me "convert"? No. I simply see it as playing the chess game well for a change. As far as I am concerned, there is too much at stake here to be "nice".

Here is something else that I know most red blooded Americans know for a fact, whether they will admit or not. Whether you want to discuss it or not, not think about it, pretend any different, throw convoluted articles or spun numbers at it, it is the truth.

If Obama had a pregnant 17/yo daughter who was being forced to marry the local rock and roll thug, and treated women the way McCain does, his numbers would be somewhere behind Bin-Laden's. An example of one group that screams "family values" and another that actually lives them.

Right now, the Demoncrats have a black man on their ticket who is in a statistical dead heat with a Republican in bad economic times.

Imagine the Demoncrats had a guy on their ticket that was raised by a single mom on food stamps, who graduated top of his class, who was intelligent, articulate, and energetic. This Demoncrat also has a good marriage with his first wife and had two beautiful children, and has actually been more active in his Christian church than his opponent. On top of that, with his family he actually lives those Christian priciples more than his opponent.

Imagine now that this Demoncrat is white, and his name is Bill Stevens.

This election wouldn't even be close.

This next statement does NOT refer to anyone in this forum. To be honest, no one here really matters because we are such a relatively small group as to be negligible.

To refute this, you are going to have to prove that 20 to 30 percent of Americans, the ones who are poorly educated and have been raised by poorly educated and bigoted rednecks, will vote against the ID part of their psyche.

Yeah, right.

 

[GregBurch]

Is it an exaggeration, yes. An outright lie? maybe. Certainly it is wrong, but is it any more wrong than constantly harping on "I said no thanks to that bridge?" or if you vote for Obama the entire country will go instantly down a rathole and be run by demonizing, Jesus hating liberals who will force all your children to convert to Obama-Sama's unholy Islam? Yeah, the whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing. Please don't even attempt to tell me that is not an underlying message of McCain's campaign because I know you know better.

Let me take this last point first [while my generator is working]. I would challenge you to find one shred of evidence that the actual McCain campaign has pushed the "Obama is a Muslim" line in any way shape or form.

There are certainly people pushing it. It's been forwarded to me twice over the last two years that Obama's been running for president. In both instances, it had all the hallmarks of the same kind of internet rumor garbage that says you're going to have to pay postage to send email, or that Bill Gates will send you one dollar if you pass on the chain letter, etc.

But I hear what you're saying. You accept that the "Rethuglican" regime of the last 8 years has been so evil that Obama is now in a "by any means necessary" situation.

BTW, if you recognize the term "Rethuglican," I think I know where you get the "evil genius Karl Rove" stuff ...

 

[Andy44]

The typical response of a candidate's fan boys when that candidate has been caught in a lie is "Well, your guy does it too!" Changing the subject is a required skill for any pol. Another response is "Well, the other guy is so evil, my guy has no choice but to play dirty!"

Never any real justification for the frankly dishonorable actions of a smooth-talking power-hungry ladder climber like Obama, just darts thrown at the other guy. The way that fans and reporters have drank this guy's kool aid, the way they fawn over him and hang on his every word, all of it unsettles me.

 

[willy88]

I really don't like this thread... hthedrama:

 

[Eagle]

Question: Why do you (some people) like McCain?

I've been in favor of McCain since the primaries, which probably makes me atypical and my opinions moot. I like him for 3 reasons. I agree with him on more issues that the other candidates, he's about as honest as politicians get, and I think he will do the right(as in moral/responsible/good) thing if elected.

That's it. Remember: Political Science isn't.

...[while my generator is working]...internet rumor garbage...Rethuglican

I hope you get power back soon, these intermittent posts just aren't enough. Best of luck.

To be fair the rhetoric from both candidates [mouths] have been relatively clean. From their supporters? Not. Really doesn't seem too different from any other election. Such is life.

Rethuglican, classic. :lol: Demoncrat was a word I used to tease some friends years ago. Hmm. Demokrupt... so many good schoolyard combination for each.

 

[replicant]

The typical response of a candidate's fan boys

Careful, I resent that. I am not a "fan boy" of anyone. McCain/Lieberman is a ticket I could have voted for. This is not about being a "fan boys" of Obama, and I expected better from you.

Never any real justification for the frankly dishonorable actions of a smooth-talking power-hungry ladder climber like Obama, just darts thrown at the other guy.

And the justifications for Palin are? Oh, that's right, she's not smooth-talking, at least not without a prepared script.

The way that fans and reporters have drank this guy's kool aid, the way they fawn over him and hang on his every word, all of it unsettles me.

And Palin is different.....how?

he's about as honest as politicians get,

This is a total lie, Obama had nothing to do with the bill, it was about age-appropriate education, and in fact, it had an opt out policy for parents. It also had information to teach kids about inapropriate touching etc.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

That's honesty? Telling people that the other guy wants to make illiterate sex fiends out of your five year olds? Notice at the end it says John McCain approves the message. Endorsing an horrific lie is the same as telling it.

and I think he will do the right(as in moral/responsible/good) thing if elected.

It's not about "moral" or "right", it's about being a public servant working within the system. I don't want "moral" and "good", I want ethics and reason.


-----Posted Added-----

But I hear what you're saying. You accept that the "Rethuglican" regime of the last 8 years has been so evil that Obama is now in a "by any means necessary" situation.

Yes and no. No to the "so evil" part. I don't like Bush for sure, and Cheney I despise. They have been guilty of many dirty things. The real truth is, however, that I could probably survive a few more years of the same. If it were McCain/Lieberman, it would probably even be a little different, if not better.

Yes to the "by any means necessary" part, but not in reference to the previous regime. This is in reference to Sarah Palin. To be honest, Palin herself does not terrify me as much as what she represents and INSPIRES in others.

1. She brings out the worst of the worst redneck. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that half of these idiots are voting the ticket " 'cause she ain't black and she's hot" Just check your inbox or google Palin and see how many references to fantasy pics you get. (again present company is excluded)

2. She represents a person who thinks she can do whatever she thinks is "good" or "moral" or "right" and the system be damned. This is ok when my thinking or yours aligns with her decision, but what about when it does not? But that's ok you say? Because she is "Good"? Absolute power corrupts absolutley. The system is far more important than any individual, and the system MUST endure. Again, we need a public servant to govern from within the system, not Kings or Queens to rule. Bureacracies suck you say? At least with a bureacracy they have to cut through some red tape before they get to your head.

So maybe I am a "fan boys", of the SYSTEM itself.

3. This is the worst, she inspires the fanatical religious right. She lets them think they are winning their holy crusade, and they will only take more. Every inch they get toward having their twisted version of God run the government and decide which passages of the bible should become national laws, they will take more. She represents a major victory for them, one that they will exploit for more and more. Palin won't be that powerful you say? Perhaps. It has already been said that she is the future of the Republican party. She is the big foot in the door for the ones who are even worse that will come after. So yes, going back up, this is the justification as far as I am concerned. This must be stopped,

"By any means necessary"

As Greg has so pointedly put it, I write checks for this.

 

[Cobalt]

Okay, before I actually post this, I might come off as harsh in this post, but I mean no disrespect to anyone here.

Yes and no. No to the "so evil" part. I don't like Bush for sure, and Cheney I despise. They have been guilty of many dirty things. The real truth is, however, that I could probably survive a few more years of the same. If it were McCain/Lieberman, it would probably even be a little different, if not better.

I'd say the gloom and doom predictions from pundits is horribly overblown.

Yes to the "by any means necessary" part, but not in reference to the previous regime. This is in reference to Sarah Palin. To be honest, Palin herself does not terrify me as much as what she represents and INSPIRES in others.

1. She brings out the worst of the worst redneck. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that half of these idiots are voting the ticket " 'cause she ain't black and she's hot" Just check your inbox or google Palin and see how many references to fantasy pics you get. (again present company is excluded)

I don't think the existence of stupid Photoshop efforts is evidence of anything. What I would challenge you on is the idea that half the people who vote Republican are racist. I hear this meme spouted off a lot, and it's purely absurd. It'd be incredibly naive to assume that there aren't people out there who are going to vote against Obama based on his race. There are still racists in the world. But to say that the bulk of them are voting with that mindset is a rather large assumption. It's also incredibly insulting to people, such as myself, who aren't supporting Obama for political reasons. What about the people that are going to vote for Obama because he's black? Is that a rational, well thought out position? And denying that there are some of that mindset is just as naive as saying nobody's voting based on race.

Perhaps people don't like Obama's policies? Or don't feel that he's the Messiah that some pundits make him out to be?

2. She represents a person who thinks she can do whatever she thinks is "good" or "moral" or "right" and the system be damned. This is ok when my thinking or yours aligns with her decision, but what about when it does not? But that's ok you say? Because she is "Good"? Absolute power corrupts absolutley. The system is far more important than any individual, and the system MUST endure. Again, we need a public servant to govern from within the system, not Kings or Queens to rule. Bureacracies suck you say? At least with a bureacracy they have to cut through some red tape before they get to your head.

Well, she isn't running for president. And despite the other lame meme going around, "just a heartbeat away," McCain seems to be in good enough health to last at least another 4 years. Even if she did step into the Presidency, I highly doubt she'd suddenly run us into the ground.

So maybe I am a "fan boys", of the SYSTEM itself.

3. This is the worst, she inspires the fanatical religious right. She lets them think they are winning their holy crusade, and they will only take more. Every inch they get toward having their twisted version of God run the government and decide which passages of the bible should become national laws, they will take more. She represents a major victory for them, one that they will exploit for more and more. Palin won't be that powerful you say? Perhaps. It has already been said that she is the future of the Republican party. She is the big foot in the door for the ones who are even worse that will come after. So yes, going back up, this is the justification as far as I am concerned. This must be stopped,

"By any means necessary"

As Greg has so pointedly put it, I write checks for this.

Who said that? Some talking head? Who's to say that the Democrats wouldn't try to exploit their power to gain more and more?

Yes, there's a religious right. There are surely some fanatical ones. There are fanatical people on the left, too. I've seen people claim to support free speech and rights, and later say Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh should be taken off the air. Again, I'd say the idea of gloom and doom is an overblown one.

There's another idea that irks me. I see it suggested much more from other places (other forums, not from anbody here) that people who aren't on the Left are just idiot rubes who desperately need the government, and those enlightened people on the Left to hold their hands through their lives. There's also an extreme version of this, where people on the Right aren't worthy of respect as another human being, since their views are just so misguided and out of touch with reality.
Now this is, by no means, the view of every Obama supporter. Far from it, and I'd never claim it is. It's just an idea that I've seen a few spread.


In a sense I'm saddened by this election, it seems that no matter the way it ends up, it's going to cause a big divide in some groups of people.

In my sad, pathetic dream world, regardless of who's in power, everyone in the country could get along, regardless of political views. That we could all work toward improving the country, in different but equally respected ways. But poor, stupid rube me.

 

[replicant]

What I would challenge you on is the idea that half the people who vote Republican are racist.

I never stated that, sorry if you misinterpreted. I stated that %20 to %30 of Americans are poorly educated rednecks. When I said: "She brings out the worst of the worst redneck. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that half of these idiots".....These idiots being the 20 to 30 percent. So I refer to half of that figure. A lot of those redneck idiots are also Democrats. So at most I refer to %15 of all voters, and maybe %10 of republican voters, which is probably a fair estimate.

What about the people that are going to vote for Obama because he's black?

Of course this is the case. However, Their numbers most likely don't offset the ones who will vote against because of race. Look at registered voter stats by race
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting/cps2006.html

Perhaps people don't like Obama's policies?

I don't like many of his policies either. I realize that most will vote based on that, but many will not, and that many create a good sized margin.

Or don't feel that he's the Messiah that some pundits make him out to be?

Nor is Sarah Palin the "Great Reformer"

Even if she did step into the Presidency, I highly doubt she'd suddenly run us into the ground.

Maybe not, but she widens the door for those that will. The likes of Dobson and his coalition must not be given any more major success to feed on.

Who said that? Some talking head?

Besides hearing "America needs to be a Christian nation" endlessly from my in-laws

"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy."
U.S. Representative Christopher Shays, R-CT, (New York Times 3/23/05)​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy​

Read the details about this guy's views on judges, laws, and government. He would normally be dismissable, but look at his influence and financial standing before he died. Doubtless many are continuing his "good work"

This guy and his followers are dominionists, and hard ones.


Soft Dominionists are Christian nationalists. They believe that Biblically-defined immorality and sin breed chaos and anarchy. They fear that America's greatness as God's chosen land has been undermined by liberal secular humanists, feminists, and homosexuals. Purists want litmus tests for issues of abortion, tolerance of gays and lesbians, and prayer in schools. Their vision has elements of theocracy, but they stop short of calling for supplanting the Constitution and Bill of Rights.


Hard Dominionists believe all of this, but they want the United States to be a Christian theocracy. For them the Constitution and Bill of Rights are merely addendums to Old Testament Biblical law. They claim that Christian men with specific theological beliefs are ordained by God to run society. Christians and others who do not accept their theological beliefs would be second-class citizens. This sector includes Christian Reconstructionists, but it has a growing number of adherents in the leadership of the Christian Right.


Sarah Palin may not be a hard dominionist, but she is a soft one, and she opens that door for and encourages the hard ones.

I've seen people claim to support free speech and rights, and later say Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh should be taken off the air.

Yes, and they are wrong. It is Rush's right to use all the drugs he wants and rant on at will.

Now this is, by no means, the view of every Obama supporter. Far from it, and I'd never claim it is. It's just an idea that I've seen a few spread.

It is a wrong idea. As I have said, I know that there are many brilliant Republican and right wing people here. A lot are even more educated than I am, or smarter in certain AREAS. That does not mean they are right, or more correctly, that their desire for the direction of the country is right for me, or others like me.

In a sense I'm saddened by this election, it seems that no matter the way it ends up, it's going to cause a big divide in some groups of people.

Yes, it seems the days of "reaching across the aisle" are gone. Keep in mind Ms. Palin will be president of the senate, and possibly the President. I don't see reaching across the aisle as her style in any way shape or form.

In my sad, pathetic dream world, regardless of who's in power, everyone in the country could get along, regardless of political views. That we could all work toward improving the country, in different but equally respected ways. But poor, stupid rube me.

I think McCain feels that way, I think Obama feels that way, and Biden. I do not think for one second Palin feels that way. In my opinion, she is a power hungry crusader out to shove her idea of God and "American" values down the throats of anyone she can.

 

[Eagle]

That's honesty? Telling people that the other guy wants to make illiterate sex fiends out of your five year olds? Notice at the end it says John McCain approves the message. Endorsing an horrific lie is the same as telling it.

More honest than most. Doesn't mean much in election season. Not gonna use the 'other guy does it' defense because I'm not voting for the other guy. I don't know how much oversight is done before a commercial is accepted, but clearly not enough in this case. If McCain knew it was a lie and went for it then he lied, otherwise he needs better oversight and to fire a few people.

It's not about "moral" or "right", it's about being a public servant working within the system. I don't want "moral" and "good", I want ethics and reason.

There is a cultural difference going on here. I'm not talking about religion at all here. When I say moral, and right I do mean ethical and rational (respectively). Its the secular humanist definitions that make a distinction. Perhaps I should write according to the definitions of my target audience. How about this?

I support McCain because I have observed that his personality and character demonstrate sufficient trustworthiness (as best as can be expected in a politician). It appears that he will use ethical rationalism to make his decisions and his code of ethics is most similar to mine of the available candidates.

Regarding his opponent, B. Obama: I disagree with several of his stated policies (relative to the policies of McCain). Therefore I am not voting for him.

 

[Cobalt]

I never stated that, sorry if you misinterpreted. I stated that %20 to %30 of Americans are poorly educated rednecks. When I said: "She brings out the worst of the worst redneck. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that half of these idiots".....These idiots being the 20 to 30 percent. So I refer to half of that figure. A lot of those redneck idiots are also Democrats. So at most I refer to %15 of all voters, and maybe %10 of republican voters, which is probably a fair estimate.

Allright, I follow that. I didn't mean to attribute that wildly spread meme to you alone. I have seen some claim that it's just the only reason Obama isn't crushing McCain under his fist.

Of course this is the case. However, Their numbers most likely don't offset the ones who will vote against because of race. Look at registered voter stats by race
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting/cps2006.html

My point wasn't their numbers so much as that there are people going in both directions, but I agree that the numbers probably swing the favor of people voting against his race.

I don't like many of his policies either. I realize that most will vote based on that, but many will not, and that many create a good sized margin.

So it boils down to what most elections do, snagging the undecideds or the uninterested.

Nor is Sarah Palin the "Great Reformer"

I concur.

Maybe not, but she widens the door for those that will. The likes of Dobson and his coalition must not be given any more major success to feed on.

There's always going to be an effort to push one way or another, regardless of who's sitting in what office. That's what lobbying is all about. I don't think it'd end up as big as it might seem. One thing about the presidential campaigns I've noticed in my short life is that there's a lot of issues made of everything, but once its all said and done they're unimportant.

I don't get why some people make no point of Obama's church ties, which were rather out there. I hear the excuse that he distanced himself from them when given the chance, but, hey, politicians talk a lot. That's a big part of their job, no? I doubt that if Obama is elected he'll try to get rid of white folks or something like that.

Besides hearing "America needs to be a Christian nation" endlessly from my in-laws

I'd gently remind them of that silly "chruch and state" deal. =)

"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy."
U.S. Representative Christopher Shays, R-CT, (New York Times 3/23/05)​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy​

Read the details about this guy's views on judges, laws, and government. He would normally be dismissable, but look at his influence and financial standing before he died. Doubtless many are continuing his "good work"

This guy and his followers are dominionists, and hard ones.

And there's surely plenty more of people like this. But, not necsessarily all in politics. People like that kind of miss the point of America in general, in my opinion.

Soft Dominionists are Christian nationalists. They believe that Biblically-defined immorality and sin breed chaos and anarchy. They fear that America's greatness as God's chosen land has been undermined by liberal secular humanists, feminists, and homosexuals. Purists want litmus tests for issues of abortion, tolerance of gays and lesbians, and prayer in schools. Their vision has elements of theocracy, but they stop short of calling for supplanting the Constitution and Bill of Rights.


Hard Dominionists believe all of this, but they want the United States to be a Christian theocracy. For them the Constitution and Bill of Rights are merely addendums to Old Testament Biblical law. They claim that Christian men with specific theological beliefs are ordained by God to run society. Christians and others who do not accept their theological beliefs would be second-class citizens. This sector includes Christian Reconstructionists, but it has a growing number of adherents in the leadership of the Christian Right.

And they're incorrect that the country should be run based upon religion.

Sarah Palin may not be a hard dominionist, but she is a soft one, and she opens that door for and encourages the hard ones.

Thankfully, we can change who represents us in office.

Yes, and they are wrong. It is Rush's right to use all the drugs he wants and rant on at will.

Y'know, I honestly think a lot of the hate toward Hannity is just jealousy since he's a good lookin' man.

It is a wrong idea. As I have said, I know that there are many brilliant Republican and right wing people here. A lot are even more educated than I am, or smarter in certain AREAS. That does not mean they are right, or more correctly, that their desire for the direction of the country is right for me, or others like me.

Indeed, and by no means is every Democrat an idiot. Stupidity knows no party. And this is, to me, what makes America great in the first place is the fact that we're even able to disagree and discuss this. We're free to stand up and say, "That's a load of crap, I don't like it!" Y'know?

Yes, it seems the days of "reaching across the aisle" are gone. Keep in mind Ms. Palin will be president of the senate, and possibly the President. I don't see reaching across the aisle as her style in any way shape or form.

But if the Dems keep majority it'd put a dent in any radical efforts she might have.

I think McCain feels that way, I think Obama feels that way, and Biden. I do not think for one second Palin feels that way. In my opinion, she is a power hungry crusader out to shove her idea of God and "American" values down the throats of anyone she can.

To a degree you could argue that every politician is power hungry. But as far as Palin herself, from interviews I've heard with her, the accusations and scares about her seem somewhat overblown. I could be wrong, she might do exactly what you said. I tend to try to see the best in people, though.

 

[Jebusy]

As much as i dont want McCain to win it i think the americans will choose him. The surprise running mate Palin already gaurantees a lot of female votes of people who dont take an interest. Ive never seen a potential vice president be so important to a campaign, ive seen more about her than McCain. i wouldnt look at the poll results above as any indication. If the entire world was voting it would look like that. Its just the Americans though.........:dry:

 

[GregBurch]

... At any rate, to return to the "by any means necessary" notion we were discussing earlier, if you have a few minutes, the following makes for interesting reading:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php

It presents what I would consider to be very compelling evidence that a public relations firm closely associated with the Obama campaign (and other left-leaning politics) was directly involved in producing and spreading videos containing information about Sarah Palin known to be false at the time it was distributed -- and did so in clear violation of at least one federal election law.

... by any means necessary ... Saul Alinsky would be proud!

 

[Andy44]

replicant, I wasn't necessarily talking about you, but you nonetheless took it personal and went on to complain about Palin, thus making my point for me. It's clear to me you dislike Palin more than Obama, and when you felt attacked you immediately deflected it onto your political enemy. "But the other guy does it too!"

Comon', don't make it so easy. The honest person must reply to an attack on his champion without making comparisons to his opponent. I happen to like Barry Goldwater, for instance. If you accused Goldwater of lying about something, it would be disingenuous for me to reply with, "But LBJ is worse!", since LBJ is not the subject of this particular conversation. I will defend Mr. Goldwater or I will decline to defend him; attacks on LBJ can wait for later. Changing the subject to deflect attention is the surest sign of a losing argument.

 

[Jebusy]

... At any rate, to return to the "by any means necessary" notion we were discussing earlier, if you have a few minutes, the following makes for interesting reading:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php

It presents what I would consider to be very compelling evidence that a public relations firm closely associated with the Obama campaign (and other left-leaning politics) was directly involved in producing and spreading videos containing information about Sarah Palin known to be false at the time it was distributed -- and did so in clear violation of at least one federal election law.

... by any means necessary ... Saul Alinsky would be proud!

whoa thats the kind of reading that makes one depressed about everything. To be honest when i was first reading it i thought it to be another internet bullchmit/conspiracy story....so i didnt let the argument take me in for a while.... we all have strong feelings here towards conspiracy theories like the people that think the moon landing was faked.......or my new personal favorite.... The world is ending in 2012. a load of....But obama has a smear site too
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/

The link there is not an argument against your argument suggesting that the people behind obama's campaign created false rumours about Palin, but rather an argument for.....im pretty convinced now that those videos (or at least some of them) came from the obama house....After reading something like that and reading the past few pages of comments here on and off for the last few days is enough to put me off both Obama and Palin (i mean McCain....). Nobody comes out of an election like this unscathed.....but ive got to admit i dont really want that report to be true....at all.

I'm still in the obama camp...but now for different reasons. selfish ones. He's not threatening. he wont start any wars or do anything really mean...he's more likely going to consider the rest of the world. Which includes me. His healthcare promises sound great. The energy independence sounds great. neither obama or mcCain is perfect. nobody is. im just bitter at the fact obama had it in the bag until McCain announced his female running mate...which was a surprise remember..nobody expected him to choose her....she's just a glorified advertisment for McCain. Nobody has heard of joe bidden over here... whats that about???

 

[Andy44]

post removed