PDA

View Full Version : It's over: the height of desperation (McCain personally calls Obama a terrorist)



Mobilus
10-23-2008, 04:56 AM
I can safely say that barring any major voting fraud from Diebold that this election is over.

Electoral-vote.com: President, Senate, House Updated Daily (http://www.electoral-vote.com)


Today John McCain for the first time released an ad that he personally endorsed that labels Obama AS a terrorist himself. On the front is the word "terrorist" and a picture of the nose of a 747 crashing into a sky-scraper and on the inside is a big picture of Barack Obama and the statement "not who you think he is." No matter what your opinion is about Ayers and Obama everyone can agree there is no shred of evidence to suggest that Obama has ever engaged in terrorism himself and the notion that you can call a candidate for the office of the American presidency a terrorist without any proof is despicable and shocking on a level we have never seen before. No other campaign has sunk as low as John McCain's in the entire history of the US.

Lets recap:
-3 months ago the McCain campaign openly said that a terrorist attack on America would be good for them because it would scare people into voting for McCain.

-2 weeks ago the McCain openly admitted that if they discuss the economy they will LOSE so they were focusing on Obama personal attacks instead.


Essentially John McCain is now not only resorting to a negative attack campaign that he promised he would never run, but he is also running a campaign of fear and coercion and essentially telling the American people that if we do not vote for him THAT WE WILL ALL DIE.

This is the same guy who was tortured in Vietnam then 40 years later wrote the Military Commissions Act which allows US citizens to be kidnapped and tortured.

This is the same guy who has changed his position on Iraq, the economy, immigration, healthcare, energy, civil rights and virtually every issue 4 major times back and forth over the last 20 years.

This ancient old idiot is on his deathbed and he wants to take down America with him. He had the audacity to pick an idiotic sex object as his running mate instead of a competent woman like Olypmia Snowe, Susan Collins, or Elizabeth Dole. What does that say about his opinion of women and the role he thinks they should serve? Why did he isolate Palin from the press and then when the press finally talked to her why were our worst fears confirmed?


John McCain represents a fork in the road. We can chose him and continue to damage ourselves irrevocably for another 4 years or we can pick something else, ANYTHING ELSE.

Obama might not be great. He might even completely screw us up. But at least he says he isn't purposefully trying to. The things that John McCain thinks are good and right are disasters that if he manages to accomplish, will destroy our country.

Do we want to see the domestic internment camps that the Bush admin. started building actually get used? McCain will fill them with "thousands of home grown terrorists."

The Military Commissions Act was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court 2 months ago. Do we want a President who will pretend that it is still law? McCain has said that if he is elected he will enact policy as if the MCA were still valid law because he thinks the court "made a bad ruling and a mistake." We've already had 8 years of Bush telling the Supreme Court "no" when they ordered him to release the prisoners in Cuba, SOME OF WHOM ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS. Do we want another President who does not respect the power of the court system?



Right now John McCain is doing anything he can to win this election, including breaking promises he made about how he would campaign less than a year ago. That right there should tell you he can't be trusted.

JLTucker
10-23-2008, 07:29 AM
I'm going to need to see the ad for myself, thanks.

Raistlin
10-23-2008, 09:09 AM
Right now John McCain is doing anything he can to win this election, including breaking promises he made about how he would campaign less than a year ago.

Aww, so unfair to the ally of slumlords, racists, socialists, communists, and unapologetic domestic terrorists that his alliances are being called into question. I just can't bring myself to shed a tear for this guy. When you have a blatantly anti-American man trying to TAKE OVER THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - and you have the press on one side actively whitewashing his past and selling a false bill of goods to the public, and you have ACORN on the other side doing the mechanical work for $800,000 - the gloves come off, and rightfully so. The simple fact is that two weeks away from the election there are still millions of people who don't know that Obama and Ayers are allies of twenty years. Millions upon millions of people are going to vote for this man believing that he is something other than what he is. How many people would vote for a man who surrounds himself with the kind of people Obama surrounds himself with? And who was mentored in high school by a communist? And who then went to college where he sought out the Marxists? And who then went to his first jobs with, guess who, William Ayers. And who then went through the entirety of his ascent into politics with Ayers. Barack Obama is a man who is comfortable with every category of anti-American radical, and they are comfortable with him. How many people would vote for that? 15% or so would be my guess.

If you are offended by the use of the word terrorist, and feel that it goes too far, I have to point out that it doesn't make a difference - the Obama campaign already said it was going too far just to say he "pals around" with terrorists. Which was, of course, a simple fact. He does more than "pal around", he establishes long-term alliances that span two decades. And if simple facts are going too far, and the McCain campaign is going to get hammered for stating them, then they might as well go all the way and make Obama explain the difference between a terrorist and somebody like him that "only" builds long-term alliances with terrorists. If you're going to have the guilt, you might as well have the gravy.

This is what I don't understand about your position, Mobilus. You have strong policy disagreements with John McCain, okay - but this makes you willing to elect a known ally of slumlords, racists, socialists, communists, and unapologetic domestic terrorists? A man with an undeniably strong anti-American sentiment attempting to undermine our Democracy with the help of the media and ACORN? Or do you not see a socialist taking over the country by concealing every aspect of his anti-American past from the public as undermining our Democracy? A guy who, when a radio station interviews an author that is exposing him, commands his followers to email-bomb the station, and then threatens that this is what will happen to other stations that air "smears" (unflattering facts). He is ALREADY using the tools available to him to silence free speech against him, and you want to put this socialist wannabe-tyrant in charge of the United States' intelligence apparatus, the IRS, military forces...

Deg™
10-23-2008, 09:26 AM
As disappointed as i may be by McCain's behavior, i'm going to have to side with Raistlin on this one. Right now, my largest personal problem with Obama is that he wants to open diplomatic ties with someone like Ahmadinejad in Iran, an open holocaust denier and a supporter of terrorism against US troops in the middle east. I might be a bit biased against him right now because the holocaust stuff is really hitting me full-force what with the research we've been doing on the issue for our production of The Diary of Anne Frank.

Now that Godwin's Law has been satisfied, i do think it is a bit overreaching to create an ad in the form described by Mobilus, but i'll have to say that i must see it myself before i can judge it.

Raistlin
10-23-2008, 09:40 AM
Right now, my largest personal problem with Obama is that he wants to open diplomatic ties with someone like Ahmadinejad in Iran, an open holocaust denier and a supporter of terrorism against US troops in the middle east.

Good point. His Middle East advisor Robert Malley also advocated providing international assistance to HAMAS.

Bonum83
10-23-2008, 09:48 AM
Hacking Democracy** go watch that movie....very imporantant news about Bush and Diebold.....

Raistlin
10-23-2008, 09:50 AM
I wouldn't worry as much about Bush as I would worry about the massive nationwide voter registration fraud being conducted by ACORN as we speak, exposed by CNN and numerous others, for which Obama is paying ACORN $800,000 through his presidential campaign. Registering fake and dead people to vote. All over the country.

Mobilus
10-23-2008, 10:55 AM
-The ACORN thing has been looked into and there is no evidence that the Obama campaign is at fault. If there are any problems with registration it appears to be overzealous registration workers who are faking registrations or allowing or not catching fake registrations.

So far there is no evidence that any of the few faked registrations that have been found are indicative of any kind of coordinated effort by ACORN. Also the money that the Obama campaign gave got from ACORN and also paid them is moot since McCain has similar financial ties that he doesn't care to explain with:
-Abramoff
-Georgian lobbyist firms and AIPAC
-Airbus
-Halliburton (do we really need this situation again?)
-Diebold ( we are still having problems, most notably machines that have been tested are counting votes for Obama as votes for McCain. what a common, easy to happen error huh?)

-Obama is 100% right on Iran. Think about it. The US is the strongest nation in the world. Offering to talk to Iran without preconditions can't hurt us at all, but Bush and McCain refuse to do even that. Their pride and political pandering is too important than solving disputes nonviolently.

Also people still fail to consider that Iran's anti US and anti-Israeli messages are mostly smoke. Remember, the way you get ahead in Iranian politics post-9/11 and post "Axis of Evil Speech" is to bash the US. In a way, the Iranian President saying all of these anti-US and anti-Israeli is a good thing because it constantly convinces the Ayatollah to cede more and more power to Iran's legislature and president over time.

Also, all of this "second Hollocost" crap is ridiculous. There will not be another Jewish hollocost anytime soon. And compared to the Russians under Stalin and the Chinese under Mao the hollocost was hardly a black-eye (we're talking 6 million people vs. 60 million and a whopping 300 million.) but yet noone cares about China and in fact Bush and McCain are content to turn a blind eye to their decades of human rights abuses as long as they provide us with cheap goods and buy our Iraq war bonds and now bonds to fund this bailout. Obama at least is the only one who is concerned about continuing the Iraq war at the cost of China holding more of our debt.
IN ANY CASE, EVERYONE KNOWS ISRAEL HAS NUKES AND IRAN KNOWS THAT IF ISRAEL IS ATTACKED BY ANYONE THAT ISRAEL WILL RESPOND BY TURNING TERHAN INTO GLASS.

So Iran is really a non-issue and more of the typical distracting fear-mongering that we should come to expect from Bush and now McCain.


Also I fail to see how even a 20 year association with Ayers does things to dispell the Bushes long term association with the bin Ladens, or McCain's long term association with coorporate lobbyists who get indicted on crimes.
If we're doing guilt by association can we please finally lock McCain up for the Keating 5? What's that you say? He was cleared of any wrongdoing? But we're talking guilt of association!!!! :rolleyes:


Ok everyone here is the ad:
GOP USES TERROR IMAGES IN AD TARGETING OBAMA - New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/10222008/news/politics/gops_shock_terror_attack_134696.htm)

Deg™
10-23-2008, 11:08 AM
Also, all of this "second Hollocost" crap is ridiculous. There will not be another Jewish hollocost anytime soon. And compared to the Russians under Stalin and the Chinese under Mao the hollocost was hardly a black-eye (we're talking 6 million people vs. 60 million and a whopping 300 million.) but yet noone cares about China and in fact Bush and McCain are content to turn a blind eye to their decades of human righta abuses as long as they provide us with cheap goods and buy our Iraq war bonds and now bonds to fund this bailout. Obama at least is the only one who is concerned about continuing the Iraq war at the cost of China holding more of our debt.
IN ANY CASE, EVERYONE KNOWS ISRAEL HAS NUKES AND IRAN KNOWS THAT IF ISRAEL IS ATTACKED BY ANYONE THAT ISRAEL WILL RESPOND BY TURNING TERHAN INTO GLASS.

I was not talking about a "second hollocaust", but anyone who denies it as an enemy of reasoned thought and freedom. I'll organize a response to the rest of your post later, but to belittle what happened in any of those three instances by use of another is an unfair argument to make. I know what you're getting at, but these are things you just don't speak of in that matter.

Mobilus
10-23-2008, 11:15 AM
I was not talking about a "second hollocaust", but anyone who denies it as an enemy of reasoned thought and freedom. I'll organize a response to the rest of your post later, but to belittle what happened in any of those three instances by use of another is an unfair argument to make. I know what you're getting at, but these are things you just don't speak of in that matter.
See what I mean? Typical smoke and mirrors. Most Americans don't even know about the 300 million chinese that Mao killed, and history books barely mention it while they spend chapters talking about the Holocaust. It's almost as if people seem to think Jews are worth more than Chinese people, which to me is bigotry.

We can talk all we want to about the Holocost but I think before that we need to come to terms with the fact that China did things at least 50 times worse. So forgive me if the holocost doesn't mean much to me when people are OK with overlooking the slaughter of 300 million because they didn't happen to be white and of the same religion as us. When America has fully integrated the Mao-massacre into its cultural memes the way it has with the holocost, then I will give a crap about 6 million dead europeans, but until then its a numbers game and the death of 6 million people is rather far down on the list as far as historical atrocities go.


To stay on topic remember, McCain is the one constantly invoking the holocost as a cheap political trick, and if anyone is disrespecting or ignoring the true lesson behind the horrible deaths of those poor victims, it is him by slutting them out as a political trick and as a tactic of fear and coercion.

Deg™
10-23-2008, 11:24 AM
See what I mean? Typical smoke and mirrors. Most Americans don't even know about the 300 million chinese that Mao killed, and history books barely mention it while they spend chapters talking about the Holocaust. It's almost as if people seem to think Jews are worth more than Chinese people, which to me is bigotry.

We can talk all we want to about the Holocost but I think before that we need to come to terms with the fact that China did things at least 50 times worse. So forgive me if the holocost doesn't mean much to me when people are OK with overlooking the slaughter of 300 million because they didn't happen to be white and of the same religion as us. When America has fully integrated the Mao-massacre into its cultural memes the way it has with the holocost, then I will give a crap about 6 million dead europeans, but until then its a numbers game the the death of 6 million people is rather far down on the list as far as historical atrocities go.
There's quite a difference between ignorance of a mass populace and the arrogance of a world leader to claim that the holocaust was a 'zionist conspiracy' for worldwide sympathy. The fact that Americans remain ignorant to the gulags or the killing fields is sad, but to claim that six million people's deaths in a manner unfit for vermin in today's society is damn right infuriating.

Mobilus
10-23-2008, 11:34 AM
What is damn infuriating is McCain thinking we should care more about the deaths of 6 million Europeans than the deaths of 300 million people by a government that he is happy to trade with for cheap products and who will fund his foreign policy agenda with war bonds.

Raistlin
10-23-2008, 11:42 AM
That ad doesn't call Obama a terrorist, it calls him out on his weak stance against terrorism.


-The ACORN thing has been looked into and there is no evidence that the Obama campaign is at fault.

Let's think about this. Obama hired an organization that is known for fraudulent voter registrations to conduct voter registration drives all over the country. He paid them $800,000 through a subsidiary group and lied on his FEC filing about what they were being paid to do. Now CNN and others are reporting that ACORN is filing fraudulent registrations all over the country, registering thousands upon thousands of fake and dead people to vote. And you don't see what is happening here?


Offering to talk to Iran without preconditions can't hurt us at all, but Bush and McCain refuse to do even that.

If you don't understand the propoganda value of this to Ahmadinejad as a means toward increased legitimacy and publicity, I'm not sure how to make it more clear.


Also I fail to see how even a 20 year association with Ayers does things to dispell the Bushes long term association with the bin Ladens, or McCain's long term association with coorporate lobbyists who get indicted on crimes.

Bush isn't running, so get over it already, and the Bush family's association with the Bin Laden family (a large, wealthy Saudi family, most of whom have nothing to do with Osama bin Laden) pales in comparison to the anti-American history of Barack Obama's entourage. And an association with a lobbyist come nowhere close to a twenty-year alliance with racists, slumlords, socialists, communists, and unapologetic domestic terrorists. I want some of that **** you're smoking.


If we're doing guilt by association can we please finally lock McCain up for the Keating 5? What's that you say? He was cleared of any wrongdoing? But we're talking guilt of association!!!!

We're not talking about guilt by association. We're talking about a clear anti-American sentiment reflected by the fact that he is comfortable with every category of anti-American radical and they are all comfortable with him. He has allied himself for the past twenty years with people who hate America. This is who he is.

Deg™
10-23-2008, 11:45 AM
What is damn infuriating is McCain thinking we should care more about the deaths of 6 million Europeans than the deaths of 300 million people by a government that he is happy to trade with for cheap products and who will fund his foreign policy agenda with war bonds.

As if we're supposed to cut ourselves off from Germany because of what Hitler did? Maoist China has passed, so has Stalinist Russia. We're also not supposed to care that Saddam used biological weapons on his own people, or that Ahmadenijad's Iran lives under massive human rights abuses, and suppression of the will of the people?

All of this on top of the fact that he denies one of the worst atrocities ever committed, and we should welcome this man to speak in our universities, let alone have a president of the United States open friendly diplomatic ties with him?!

Mobilus
10-23-2008, 12:28 PM
Raistlin, perhaps if you believe the Obama campaign is guilty of what you accuse it of, then maybe you'd like to write to President Bush and encourage him to fully staff the FEC's disciplinary board so they can make a ruling against Obama BEFORE the election. Oh that's right, if they are fully staffed that means they have to hear the other complaints that were filed first and are in-line ahead of any potential complaints about Obama. Those complaints include McCain using public funds as collaterol for loans, McCain sending out fake absentee ballots to registered democrats.

Either drop the ACORN thing or accept the fact that the McCain complaints come first and the FEC will evaluate those FIRST. Bush does not want to fully staff the FEC though. If Obama is engaging in such clear misconduct I cannot see why Bush wouldn't want to fully staff the FEC and allow them to pursue these injustices...
:rolleyes:

LOL, how can you ignore everything I typed about Iran. Are you going to copy and paste the same tired points about legitimacy and publicity over and over? Pathetic.


Contrary to McCain's attempt at making a famous sound-byte about how he is not George Bush, McCain wants to continue or make worse nearly every Bush initiative. Do you really want me to pull up the youtube clip of John McCain himself saying he voted with Bush 90% of the time?


We're not talking about guilt by association. We're talking about a clear anti-American sentiment reflected by the fact that he is comfortable with every category of anti-American radical and they are all comfortable with him. He has allied himself for the past twenty years with people who hate America. This is who he is.In other words, he is associating with people who you think have done bad things? You can call it whatever you want, but unless you have proof that Obama planted a bomb or helped someone else do it, you are contributing to the destruction of civil discourse and you are aiding the smoke and mirrors of the McCain campaign who freely admits that they will lose if they stick to the issues. Does this bother you at all?



The ad DID call Obama a terrorist since the cover says "terrorists" and you open it up and there is a huge picture of Obama in an angry pose and the caption says "not who you thought he was." Pretty clear that is the message there. You can try to mitigate it away if you want but that is what it is doing. The small text about the Iran quote does nothing to change it or shift blame from McCain for this purely ad-hominem attack and horrific fear-mongering.

The fact that they can take a picture of the nose of a jumbo jet crashing into a floor of people in a sky-scraper and prostitute it for political use should make all of you sick. Do you appreciate the dead of 9/11 being used in this way? Does it make you feel good about John McCain? Obama has never resorted to this kind of tasteless advertising.


Deguasser,

Maoist China has not passed. The same party and same government is still there, unlike Russia and Germany. They are still treating the people as if they are worthless laborers. Tianamen Square was a recent reminder of this. There has been no revolution or war in China like there was in Germany and Russia. What kind of idiot are you to say that "Maoist China has passed" when he is still viewed as their leader even after his death and the government is still made up of people who were alive when he was? His policies are still in place even with the introduction of a limited number of S.pecial E.conomic Z.ones around the country. How dare you think China is no longer a problem!

The difference between the Holocost and China is that Nazi Germany is gone and the Jews are now protected inside their own state with nuclear weapons, but in China the Maoist government is still there killing its people and enslaving/oppressing/disenfranchising them.

Raistlin
10-23-2008, 01:02 PM
Raistlin, perhaps if you believe the Obama campaign is guilty of what you accuse it of, then maybe you'd like to write to President Bush and encourage him to fully staff the FEC's disciplinary board so they can make a ruling against Obama BEFORE the election.
The Obama campaign already admitted that ACORN was being paid to do voter registration work instead of what they had claimed ACORN was being paid to do on their FEC filing (lighting and stage work...), this is not just an accusation I am making.

Those complaints include McCain using public funds as collaterol for loans, McCain sending out fake absentee ballots to registered democrats.
I'm sure they look into every complaint. But this is a proven fact - CNN busted ACORN for registering fake and dead people to vote, and busted Obama for paying them $800,000 and lying on his FEC filing about what ACORN was being paid to do.

LOL, how can you ignore everything I typed about Iran. Are you going to copy and paste the same tired points about legitimacy and publicity over and over? Pathetic.
If you don't understand that the leader of a rogue nation is granted legitimacy and publicity when an American president sits down with him, and will immediately use it for propoganda, what is there to talk about?

Do you really want me to pull up the youtube clip of John McCain himself saying he voted with Bush 90% of the time?
McCain has ranged between 77% and 95% agreement with Bush from year to year since 2001, and has a long-standing history of breaking with his party and crossing the aisle. Obama, on the other hand, votes with the Democrats 96% of the time in a Democratic Congress that has the lowest approval rating of any Congress ever, significantly lower than Bush's approval rating, and does not have a history of breaking with his party and crossing the aisle. I would be generous to call it a draw on this subject.

In other words, he is associating with people who you think have done bad things? You can call it whatever you want, but unless you have proof that Obama planted a bomb or helped someone else do it, you are contributing to the destruction of civil discourse and you are aiding the smoke and mirrors of the McCain campaign who freely admits that they will lose if they stick to the issues. Does this bother you at all?
I don't think they have done bad things, I know they have, and so did Barack Obama when he chose to make them his lifelong allies. When a man allies himself for twenty years with racists, slumlords, socialists, communists, and unapologetic domestic terrorists, you would have to be an idiot to believe that he does not share their anti-American sentiment. Maybe he just really liked their coffee maker?

And how is it a sin on the part of the McCain campaign to acknowledge that if they allow Obama to blather on with his class-warfare appeal instead of making him account for his long-standing alliances with every category of anti-American radical, they will lose?

The ad DID call Obama a terrorist since the cover says "terrorists" and you open it up and there is a huge picture of Obama in an angry pose and the caption says "not who you thought he was." Pretty clear that is the message there. You can try to mitigate it away if you want but that is what it is doing.
There is a message about terrorists on the front, and a message about a presidential candidate who is weak on terrorism inside. Nowhere does McCain call Obama a terrorist, which is what your OP claimed.
The small text about the Iran quote does nothing to change it or shift blame from McCain for this purely ad-hominem attack and horrific fear-mongering.
Just because Obama's posture on terrorism is horrifically frightening doesn't mean that pointing it out is horrific fearmongering.

The fact that they can take a picture of the nose of a jumbo jet crashing into a floor of people in a sky-scraper and prostitute it for political use should make all of you sick. Do you appreciate the dead of 9/11 being used in this way? Does it make you feel good about John McCain? Obama has never resorted to this kind of tasteless advertising.
How do you suggest they make the point that we are in an age of terrorism and Obama is an ally of unrepentant terrorists along with every other category of anti-American? Flowers?

Deg™
10-23-2008, 01:09 PM
I need a larger image to verify, but it looks like an airport scene, with the plane parked outide the window to me.

Mobilus
10-23-2008, 01:16 PM
You can say all you want about CNN or the Obama campaign admitting things, it doesn't matter. The proper forum for handling these complaints isn't evening television or even the courts, it's the FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION. And right now we have a President who is REFUSING to fully staff it and he won't say why.... IMAGINE THAT! I can guess why....President Bush must be a closet Obama supporter!!!! :rolleyes:

I really could care less if Iran is given publicity or legitimacy since I have shown why:
-They will never act on their propaganda statements
-It is a good thing because the Ayatollah will concede more powers over time to the elected officials in Iran because he can trust them to be "anti American enough" on their own, which is the only reason they are making these statements
-The situation with China is worse since by our giving China Most Favored Nation trading status and selling our debt to them we are giving publicity and legitimacy to the butchers and oppressors of BILLIONS OF PEOPLE. Excuse me if this pisses all over and kills your weak Iran argument.

I really could care less if Obama was voting with his party since his party was voting against Bush most of the time, because Bush's policies are what have screwed over our country for 8 years in every measurable sense. Name ONE positive thing Bush has done for the country that John McCain supported and that the democrats opposed. NAME ONE.


The ad was labeling Obama as a terrorist. Pure and simple. It said terrorists in big letters then you open it up and see a picture of him. If you think having some small text inside serves as a sufficient 'disclaimer' then you are wrong. Presentation matters. Who are you, a rep. for the pharmaceutical companies? The courts already ruled that Pfizers' and Merc's warnings about celebrex and other drugs weren't sufficient enough to counteract the false image that the overwhelming majority of their ads presented. This is the same thing.

It makes me sad that it doesn't make you sad about whoring out the victims of 9/11. I can only imagine the horror if one of those ads made it to a surviving family member of a victim of that day. McCain could talk about the issue without making a grisly ad that shows people about to be vaporized by a jumbo jet. What kind of sick bastard are you to defend this? Do you truly believe the imagery and presentation of that ad were necessary or acceptable?


Degausser, even if it is an airport scene, which it may well be with those bags there, planes don't EVER get that close to the terminal. That plane is depicted as being mere INCHES away from the glass. Airports use extended elevated walkways to connect terminals to planes. The image was clearly meant to invoke 9/11.

Phrostbite
10-23-2008, 01:22 PM
I'm going to need to see the ad for myself, thanks.

I agree. Does anybody have a link to a youtube video or something similiar that we can see the commercial.

Mobilus
10-23-2008, 01:25 PM
It wasn't a TV ad it was a paper/email ad and there is a link to it in one of my above posts already.

Raistlin
10-23-2008, 01:57 PM
You can say all you want about CNN or the Obama campaign admitting things, it doesn't matter. The proper forum for handling these complaints isn't evening television or even the courts, it's the FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't get upset when they are caught attempting to undermine our democracy.

I really could care less if Iran is given publicity or legitimacy since I have shown why:
You don't see any problem with granting a maniac like the president of Iran publicity and legitimacy on the world stage, which he will immediately put to good use in a propoganda campaign that will touch the entire middle east? No problem at all?

I really could care less if Obama was voting with his party since his party was voting against Bush most of the time, because Bush's policies are what have screwed over our country for 8 years in every measurable sense.
Which policy, the war the Democrats agreed with? The tax cuts that ended Clinton's recession and took unemployment down to 4.6% until the Democrats' refusal to regulate the housing market caused the current crash? The refusal of Bush to "negotiate" with countries like Iran and North Korea after seeing the disastrous effects of Clinton's policy in that area? The Patriot Act that most Democrats support?

The ad was labeling Obama as a terrorist. Pure and simple. It said terrorists in big letters then you open it up and see a picture of him.
By that logic, you could say it was calling the family on the front of the ad terrorists. It does show the family and say "terrorists" right above them in giant letters, after all.

It makes me sad that it doesn't make you sad about whoring out the victims of 9/11. I can only imagine the horror if one of those ads made it to a surviving family member of a victim of that day. McCain could talk about the issue without making a grisly ad that shows people about to be vaporized by a jumbo jet. What kind of sick bastard are you to defend this? Do you truly believe the imagery and presentation of that ad were necessary or acceptable?
I dare say the fact that at least half of the country is completely ignorant of Obama's longstanding anti-American alliances speaks to the fact that McCain hasn't made the point ENOUGH (not to mention the whitewashing by most of the press). And if I had a family member who died on 9/11, and I was looking at this man who sympathizes with unapologetic domestic terrorists and socialists and communists and slumlords and racists trying to take over the country while concealing his alliances from the public, I would definitely want his opponent to invoke 9/11 and remind the public that we are in an age of terrorism as they consider voting for this man.

Mobilus
10-23-2008, 02:52 PM
I'll get upset when I see the ruling the FEC will make on the issue, until then it is speculation and accusations. Sounds like you should write to Bush and tell him to fully staff the FEC if you feel Obama is doing something wrong.


You quoted the preface I made to my reasons about Iran and then totally left them out? What is wrong with you? Can't you read just a few more sentences after that one? I told you why it is good that the Iranians are given publicity and you have yet to address the reason why.


I told you to find me ONE positive thing that Bush has done for the country that:
-McCain agreed with
-Obama and the democrats disagreed with

You still can't do it.


Did you miss my discussion about thematic presentation and why the courts have already ruled the same way in pharmaceutical companies' cases? Are you going to vaguely respond without taking this into account again? What's the point of hitting the reply button if you don't intend to respond to what I wrote? The ad labeled Obama a terrorist. it didn't matter what the fine print said. Can you imagine the public's reaction if Obama released an add with a picture of McCain with the single word DESERTER in big block letters? Do you think anyone would care what the small print said?

I can call every alliance John McCain has with lobbyists and defense contractors un-American by invoking Eisenhower and the military industrial complex.

But one thing that we DON'T do is question the patriotism of people without solid evidence that they themselves, not their friends, have committed crimes against the country.

Raistlin
10-23-2008, 03:20 PM
I'll get upset when I see the ruling the FEC will make on the issue, until then it is speculation and accusations.
Fact - Obama paid ACORN $800,000.
Fact - Obama lied on his FEC filing about what ACORN was paid to do.
Fact - ACORN is currently conducting fraudulent voter drives all over the country, documented by CNN and numerous others.

Where do you see speculation in this?

You quoted the preface I made to my reasons about Iran and then totally left them out? What is wrong with you? Can't you read just a few more sentences after that one? I told you why it is good that the Iranians are given publicity and you have yet to address the reason why.
Those reasons do not warrant giving this maniac publicity and legitimacy on the world stage, which he will immediately use to spread a campaign of propaganda over the entire middle east. That is only my opinion, of course...


I told you to find me ONE positive thing that Bush has done for the country that:
-McCain agreed with
-Obama and the democrats disagreed with
You still can't do it.
I made my point; going any further is pointless since I already know that we will disagree about whether liberating 50 million people, passing the largest tax reform in history, enforcing the Gulf War ceasefire, assuming a hard diplomatic stance against enemies of the United States, engaging the terrorist network that declared war on us, etc., were positive things that Bush did for the country.

Did you miss my discussion about thematic presentation and why the courts have already ruled the same way in pharmaceutical companies' cases? Are you going to vaguely respond without taking this into account again? What's the point of hitting the reply button if you don't intend to respond to what I wrote? The ad labeled Obama a terrorist. it didn't matter what the fine print said. Can you imagine the public's reaction if Obama released an add with a picture of McCain with the single word DESERTER in big block letters? Do you think anyone would care what the small print said?
Your OP wasn't about the implication or the thematic presentation... you said outright that McCain personally called Obama a terrorist. The ad does nothing of the sort. Sure, this is a technicality, but I'm not the one reading between the lines either.

I can call every alliance John McCain has with lobbyists and defense contractors un-American by invoking Eisenhower and the military industrial complex.
Okay, you got me. The war hero, John McCain, is the un-American candidate in this race, not the guy who surrounds himself with socialists, communists, racists, slumlords, and unapologetic domestic terrorists.

But one thing that we DON'T do is question the patriotism of people without solid evidence that they themselves, not their friends, have committed crimes against the country.
So a guy can surround himself for two decades with every category of anti-American radical, and still convince you that he is patriotic? Does the word "gullible" mean anything to you?

DSG
10-23-2008, 04:13 PM
You guys need to wake up and smell the bacon, both McCain and Obama are horrible choices and are going to do damage. If you are the sort of person that feels a need to vote for one of the two worst choices just because everybody else is, fine, be a sheep. If thats the way you are going to vote it breaks down to who is the lesser evil. I hope you can sleep at night knowing you are pushing for a candidate that is 'just the lesser evil'. It disgusts me how partisans blind themselves to the other side of the fence and argue about the other side when their own side has glaring flaws that are worse in some aspects. This kind of politics has gotten us where we are now. Modern Republicans and Democrats are two sides to the same bad coin!

That said, McCain is disgusting me with how low he is stooping. It is uncalled for and even though Obama has spent more money on campaigning McCain's ads have been overwhelmingly negative. If he has to resort to this kinda thing to (attempt to)win then he is not fit to be Commander-In-Cheif. McCain however is not Bush despite how much the Democrats want people to think that(although he believes in A LOT of the same policies).
Obama on the other hand, we don't know a whole lot about, without a record to look at we can't tell if hes lying about his stances or not or get a general concept of what kind of a person he really is. I have a problem with him voting 'Present', its like he was planning on running for the presidency the whole time. However, he finally wants to end this current reverse-socialist 'trickle down' economics concept which is so full of **** its hard to believe people actually think anything like that actually works.

When you break things down, you really can't trust either of these guys. I highly recommend people consider a write-in vote or voting for one of the 3rd parties.

6satan6archist6
10-23-2008, 06:43 PM
"Aww, so unfair to the ally of slumlords, racists, socialists, communists, and unapologetic domestic terrorists that his alliances are being called into question."

Why would he be an ally of racists? That doesn't make any sense. Why would racists be an ally of his? That makes even less sense. Who are these slumlords, racists, socialists, communists and unapologetic domestic terrorists that you speak of? What terrorist acts has this person been a part of? Further more what is the difference between war and terrorism besides the budget?


"I just can't bring myself to shed a tear for this guy. When you have a blatantly anti-American man trying to TAKE OVER THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"

McCain will continue with the politics of the bush administration. Politics that because of the devestating impacts it has had on America and American citizens; I would consider to be anti-American.

"A guy who, when a radio station interviews an author that is exposing him, commands his followers to email-bomb the station"

I need to see some proof of these accusations

Deg™
10-23-2008, 07:01 PM
"Aww, so unfair to the ally of slumlords, racists, socialists, communists, and unapologetic domestic terrorists that his alliances are being called into question."

Why would he be an ally of racists? That doesn't make any sense. Why would racists be an ally of his? That makes even less sense. Who are these slumlords, racists, socialists, communists and unapologetic domestic terrorists that you speak of? What terrorist acts has this person been a part of? Further more what is the difference between war and terrorism besides the budget?
Are you honestly naive enough to suggest that the tendencies of bigotry are exclusive to white people?

6satan6archist6
10-23-2008, 09:56 PM
Well now that I think about it I would have to say no. That was just the first thing that came to mind. Irregardless that doesn't answer my other questions.

topaz
10-24-2008, 03:44 AM
Raistlin is a successful troll.

K? Pŕo?ćtiόnŹ
10-24-2008, 05:25 AM
And you are not

Raistlin
10-24-2008, 10:35 AM
That said, McCain is disgusting me with how low he is stooping.
It's not the guy who allies himself for twenty years with racists, slumlords, socialists, communists, and unapologetic domestic terrorists, and then actively conceals his alliances from the public in a bid to take over the country, who disgusts you... it is the person who exposes what this man is trying to conceal from you that disgusts you?

Come now. You expect John McCain to sit by and not say a word about Obama's longstanding alliances with every category of anti-American radical, so that the guy can get himself elected by concealing the entirety of his past from the American people? And if he doesn't quietly sit by and watch it happen, he is now the bad guy?

To get upset at John McCain for informing you of facts that Barack Obama has intentionally concealed from you, and vote for Obama anyway, is like a daycare getting upset at you for informing them that one of their applicants is a registered sex offender, and hiring the guy anyway.

It is uncalled for and even though Obama has spent more money on campaigning McCain's ads have been overwhelmingly negative.
Informing the voting public about Obama's longstanding alliances is not uncalled for at all. CONCEALING THOSE ALLIANCES IN A BID TO TAKE OVER THE PRESIDENCY is uncalled for. SITTING IDLY BY AND WATCHING IT HAPPEN WITHOUT EXPOSING HIM would be uncalled for.

And Obama hasn't just spent more campaigning, he has spent significantly more on negative ads than McCain - more than any candidate in history, in fact.

Obama on the other hand, we don't know a whole lot about, without a record to look at we can't tell if hes lying about his stances or not or get a general concept of what kind of a person he really is.
We know a lot about Obama. As a child he was indoctrinated in a madrasse in Indonesia. He was mentored in high school by a communist. When he went to college he sought out the Marxists. And after one year of college he hooked up with William Ayers, an alliance that continued throughout his ascent into politics. During this time he has allied himself with the criminal slumlord Tony Rezko, William Ayers' old friend Marilyn Katz, the Marxist leader Raila Odinga in Kenya, and numerous others that fit the same bill. Upon entering politics, he spent his time shilling for Tony Rezko in the Illinois State Senate and breaking his promise to cut taxes for the middle class (instead he voted to raise taxes on the middle class...), followed by a brief stint in the US Senate that has mostly consisted of his presidential campaign.

So what does that add up to? A politician who has accomplished absolutely nothing, who has a history of breaking his main campaign promise, and who has surrounded himself for the past twenty years with every kind of anti-American radical and is lying about it to a public that would never vote for him if they knew.

However, he finally wants to end this current reverse-socialist 'trickle down' economics concept which is so full of **** its hard to believe people actually think anything like that actually works.
I would refer you to my rebuttal of this idea earlier in the thread.

When you break things down, you really can't trust either of these guys. I highly recommend people consider a write-in vote or voting for one of the 3rd parties.
Given the choice between a war hero and a guy who has surrounded himself for the past twenty years with people who hate America, I trust the war hero more to have the best interests of the country at heart.

Why would he be an ally of racists? That doesn't make any sense. Why would racists be an ally of his? That makes even less sense. Who are these slumlords, racists, socialists, communists and unapologetic domestic terrorists that you speak of?
Racist - Jeremiah Wright, Father Pfleger, James Meeks
Slumlord - Tony Rezko
Socialist - Raila Odinga, Obama's fellow New Party members
Communist - Frank Marshall Davis, Michael Klonsky
Unapologetic domestic terrorist - William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn

The documented facts (from CNN and numerous others) regarding his relationships with these people are listed at The Slipping Mask (http://www.theslippingmask.com), and each of the documented facts links you directly to the source to confirm it for yourself.

Further more what is the difference between war and terrorism besides the budget?
I guess you would have to consult a dictionary. And if you really believe they are the same, then okay - William Ayers didn't just commit acts of terrorism, he waged war against the United States.

McCain will continue with the politics of the bush administration. Politics that because of the devestating impacts it has had on America and American citizens; I would consider to be anti-American.
A sad equivocation. I could argue the premise easily, but it's even easier to accept it and then ask: because you disagree with his policies, he is now ANTI-AMERICAN like Obama, who surrounds himself with anti-American radicals of every type for twenty years? You have GOT to be kidding me.

"A guy who, when a radio station interviews an author that is exposing him, commands his followers to email-bomb the station"
I need to see some proof of these accusations
A source that spins but confirms it: Obama mobilizes rapid response on Web -- chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-mediasep17,0,6325137.story)
A source you don't like: Media Blog on National Review Online (http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmRhYmE3NzFlMTljNTdmZGQ3MjhkYTVjNzdmMjVhMzE)
A source you don't like: IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Obama's Motion To Suppress (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=305248120539041)
Another random source: Ben Smith's Blog: Obama seeks to take down NRA ad - Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_seeks_to_take_down_NRA_ad.html?showall)

6satan6archist6
10-24-2008, 12:04 PM
I'll ask again. What terrorist acts are you speaking of?

Mobilus
10-24-2008, 03:25 PM
Raislin,
You say the Obama campaign has admitted its problems with ACORN. You seem to be forgetting the fact that several weeks prior to this the McCain campaign admitted to and defended in federal court their having sent fake absentee ballots to registered democrats in Ohio and their defense was that the court shouldn't be hearing the complaint, that the FEC (which Bush refuses to fully staff so they can't make disciplinary rulings) should be the ones hearing it. Which is worse: employing an organization that can't keep control of a few registration workers who become overzealous and do a few fake registrions that are isolated examples and not part of a strategy, or an organized, massive attempt from a campaign itself to take existing voters and steal their votes?

Also, you claim Obama is in lock-step with Ayers and these other people. But in fact Obama has denounced their actions and the ideology behind them. At the end of the day all you can do is sit there and say that because Obama has known them for many years that he must completely agree with them 100% and support them. I guess you must not have any good, long-time close friends you disagree with on fundamental issues Raistlin. I have many. In the end your entire argument against Obama is based on conjecture and your attempts to read Obama's mind even though there is nothing to support your assertions on how Obama thinks.

NO MATTER HOW MUCH I ATTACK MCCAIN I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO READ HIS MIND AND I ONLY STICK TO ATTACKING THE THINGS HE HAS DONE AND THE THINGS HE HAD SAID.

Stop being destructive to civil discourse. When we doubt the motivations of others, even when they tell us what they are, we are being the worst kind of liars. How do you know Obama thinks the way you describe him? He gives no indication of it in his speech or his actions. But the American people seem to understand this since Obama has jumped up in the polls and even Collin Powell has endorsed him.


Keep in mind I don't really like Obama, but between him and McCain (who wrote the MCA which destroys our civil rights and who jokes about nuking other countries) McCain is far more dangerous than Obama ever could be.

McCain has also demonstrated signs of senility and brain disease in his faltering speech, his problematic memory and short-term recall, and also his physical motor skills seem impaired as he often jerks around and sticks his tongue out. COME ON.

Raistlin
10-24-2008, 08:29 PM
Which is worse: employing an organization that can't keep control of a few registration workers who become overzealous and do a few fake registrions that are isolated examples and not part of a strategy
I urge you to watch the coverage by CNN and others regarding what ACORN is doing right now. We are talking about thousands upon thousands of fake and dead people being registered to vote, all over the country, paid for by $800,000 of Barack Obama's campaign money.

Also, you claim Obama is in lock-step with Ayers and these other people.
No, I'm not claiming anything, I'm stating a fact. He has alliances with these people spanning two decades. It is what it is; this is where he is coming from. You want to fool yourself into believing that he allied himself for two decades with every category of anti-American radical but shares none of their anti-American sentiment. You're not being honest with yourself.

But in fact Obama has denounced their actions and the ideology behind them.
Only when it became politically necessary to do so did he denounce any of them. And each time he simultaneously lied about the extent of the relationship, making the denunciations even less legitimate.

At the end of the day all you can do is sit there and say that because Obama has known them for many years that he must completely agree with them 100% and support them.
Allying yourself with someone for the entirety of your ascent into politics is an expression of support. And if he does disagree with them, it is not a strong enough disagreement to dissuade him from allying himself with them for two decades. None of this is a complaint about the fact that he knew them for a long time - it's about the fact that he proactively allied himself with them. Now, why did he choose to ally himself for two decades with slumlords, socialists, communists, racists, and unapologetic domestic terrorists, if he does not share their anti-American sentiment?

I guess you must not have any good, long-time close friends you disagree with on fundamental issues Raistlin.
Classic moral equivocation. Yes, I have friends with whom I disagree on numerous subjects. No, I don't hang out with socialists, communists, racists, unapologetic domestic terrorists, or slumlords. Much less ally myself with them for two decades.

In the end your entire argument against Obama is based on conjecture and your attempts to read Obama's mind even though there is nothing to support your assertions on how Obama thinks.
My argument is that this is a man who has surrounded himself for the past two decades with every category of anti-American radical. That is not conjecture, it is a fact. A man whose long-term allies are racists, slumlords, socialists, communists, and unapologetic domestic terrorists should not even be running for president, much less getting your vote.

Stop being destructive to civil discourse.
I can't think of any discourse more necessary right now than informing ignorant voters that their preferred candidate is an anti-American radical actively concealing his past from them. That is something people NEED to know. You should be ANGRY that you didn't know these things about Obama, and that he lied to you. It is not destructive to civil discourse to point out that the guy is lying to you. This is like the grownup version of "he who smelt it dealt it". I'm sorry, but the problem is that Obama has longstanding alliances with numerous anti-American radicals, and is lying about it. The problem isn't that I am pointing it out to you.

But the American people seem to understand this since Obama has jumped up in the polls
Baaa.

and even Collin Powell has endorsed him.
Four former Secretaries of State have endorsed McCain, making the count four to one on this subject.

McCain is far more dangerous than Obama ever could be.
Wake up. A socialist who is allied with every category of anti-American radical is trying to take over the country. This isn't about being a Republican or a Democrat. We are talking about a silent coup here, and it's not even subtle. You are an intelligent person. Wake the **** up.

I'll ask again. What terrorist acts are you speaking of?
The Slipping Mask (http://www.theslippingmask.com)

Aberrant
10-24-2008, 11:06 PM
I agree with you DSG, these are the worst 2 candidates this country has ever produced. Come on, can't we find someone else?





But one thing that we DON'T do is question the patriotism of people without solid evidence that they themselves, not their friends, have committed crimes against the country.

But to respond to this bit Mobilus, I will go with the picture is worth a thousand words reply.

http://urbangrounds.com/images/Barack_Flag.jpg

PreiLude
10-24-2008, 11:30 PM
But to respond to this bit Mobilus, I will go with the picture is worth a thousand words reply.

http://urbangrounds.com/images/Barack_Flag.jpg

I dont get whats wrong with this picture i didnt put my hand over my heart all the time. Guess that makes me non-american

Mookster
10-24-2008, 11:47 PM
It's a superficiality. He's paying just as much attention if not more than the dumb**** in the middle, for instance; not that I believe this particularly matters or even relates to either candidate's "true" intentions.

Aberrant
10-24-2008, 11:57 PM
I guess I just grew up differently, but for me when the national anthem is playing you salute. Be it with your hand over your heart in civilians or a full salute in uniform. Granted I get pissed at people at ball games too.

Mookster
10-25-2008, 12:08 AM
I can understand how you'd have that embedded being a military man, too, but you've got to keep in mind that it's really only disrespectful when the person is intending to offend by not doing so. It's very much like an elbows on the table or hat on in another man's home sort of thing.

Since it feels odd defending Obama (as it would McCain, since I think they're both ridiculous choices for a nation-leader) I must point out that I'm only defending good reason.

ParadiseFaust
10-25-2008, 12:51 AM
AWe're also not supposed to care that Saddam used biological weapons on his own people, or that Ahmadenijad's Iran lives under massive human rights abuses, and suppression of the will of the people?

All of this on top of the fact that he denies one of the worst atrocities ever committed, and we should welcome this man to speak in our universities, let alone have a president of the United States open friendly diplomatic ties with him?!
McCain would simply settle for war with Iran. An Iran war will be a messier, bloodier version of the Iraq war, because Iran has better strategical borders,weaponry, and more citizens. Not to mention the only reason that Iran is under a radical Muslim dictatorship is because the pro-American Iranian monarch was ousted, with support by the Americans.
I don't think that war is the answer. The cost of civilians is not worth it.

Aberrant
10-25-2008, 01:28 AM
I can understand how you'd have that embedded being a military man, too, but you've got to keep in mind that it's really only disrespectful when the person is intending to offend by not doing so. It's very much like an elbows on the table or hat on in another man's home sort of thing.

Since it feels odd defending Obama (as it would McCain, since I think they're both ridiculous choices for a nation-leader) I must point out that I'm only defending good reason.

Actually it is a bit more than an elbows on the table type offense. It is a United States Codes, and since he is trying to be the President of the United States, you would think he would follow the code.

United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171

Mookster
10-25-2008, 02:00 AM
Eh. The fact that it's a documented rule by the government doesn't make me think any more of it. I do agree in some sense, to be lenient toward conforming for the sake of people who do think it's important, but objectively I think it's just plain silly, like a grand scale boy's club.

Aberrant
10-25-2008, 02:04 AM
It does take it to the next level because of the office he is running for. Would you walk into a job interview and disregard a known policy of the company you were trying to work for? I mean hell he is trying to be the commander and chief of all the armed forces, and it is mandatory for them to stop what they are doing and salute.

Mookster
10-25-2008, 02:26 AM
I know, but I'm pretty certain that if it had occurred to him he probably would've made a point to please the public eye. I suppose he, as the guy that wants to be president, should be making every point to be as much of a super patriot as possible, but you know, flag waving is deceptive imo anyway.

Belphegor
10-25-2008, 03:05 AM
It does take it to the next level because of the office he is running for. Would you walk into a job interview and disregard a known policy of the company you were trying to work for? I mean hell he is trying to be the commander and chief of all the armed forces, and it is mandatory for them to stop what they are doing and salute.My only argument, is why do not schools teach this? Before that picture, I never in my life seen someone place they're hand on they're heart during the national anthem. Then I find out about 70% of the people I know from various online places didn't know the same thing. If our country doesn't teach it, people don't know.

Polie13
10-25-2008, 09:05 AM
My only argument, is why do not schools teach this? Before that picture, I never in my life seen someone place they're hand on they're heart during the national anthem. Then I find out about 70% of the people I know from various online places didn't know the same thing. If our country doesn't teach it, people don't know.

I'm pretty sure it's just where you live or went to school at. My school in Oklahoma taught everybody that every single year I went (K-12).

Belphegor
10-25-2008, 10:04 AM
I got reports from Lansing MI, Boise ID, Milwaukee, Kansas city, New York, Miami. Its quite common to not be taught that.

Also for some to not be named, make sure you realize its the National Anthem, not the pledge of allegiance.

Dyndrilliac
10-25-2008, 11:05 AM
Also for some to not be named, make sure you realize its the National Anthem, not the pledge of allegiance.Aberrant is still right about it being a requirement for servicemen, regardless of what patriotic song it is. The drill is pretty much stop whatever you're doing and go to parade rest on bugle calls, and salute on songs, which are pseudo-randomly played after the bugle calls. If you've ever been on a military base it's kind of creepy at first, like someone hit the pause button on everyone - cars stop, people stop, everyone stops and essentially doesn't move until the song or bugle call is over.

IMO the only people who have a right to be offended by this are people who are or have served in the military; And even then, the fact of the matter is the only reason you are offended it is because it's been ingrained into your brain. I give Uncle Sam his due props, but no one is better at brainwashing than Americans. I did a couple years in the reserve for college money while a few of my friends decided to enlist and make a career out of it, and speaking from experience when you get out of basic you can hear a call for attention a mile away and at first no matter who called it or where it came from you jump to attention like your life depends on it.


And Obama hasn't just spent more campaigning, he has spent significantly more on negative ads than McCain - more than any candidate in history, in fact.Show us these negative Obama ads. I know I haven't seen any on TV, and I live in a key battleground state. I have seen negative McCain ads, and him refusing to talk about the issues, though.

Aberrant
10-25-2008, 01:04 PM
They stopped teaching it in some schools years ago because some bleeding hearts that want to appease everyone said it was hurting non-religious people's feelings. I have no problem saying that as I am not religious and can't stand the organized religion complex. But I also realize that this is a country and we should stand together, I just do not say the under god part but am still respectful.

As for America being able to brainwash people to be patriotic. We are one of the more non patriotic countries, because everyone is always worried about hurting someone's feelings.

It isn't just people who were in the military who should be offended, everyone in this country should be offended that someone who wants to be the future leader of the country does not show he appreciates being in the country. As for weather he knew or not, he grew up in the end of the era that still taught it everywhere, plus he has advisers for everything, if he didn't know that is just one more thing to worry me about the man.

Raistlin
10-25-2008, 01:14 PM
Show us these negative Obama ads. I know I haven't seen any on TV, and I live in a key battleground state.

I live in Ohio and I see them constantly.

This study spins it a bit but shows them to be spending equally on negative ads:

http://wiscadproject.wisc.edu/wiscads_release_101608.pdf

There is another one that breaks down all the numbers and shows Obama spending more, but I can't find it. Even if you call it even, the claim that McCain shouldn't be talking about Obama's past because it's "negative" (only in politics are YOU being negative when your opponent turns out to be an anti-American creep), is baloney. They have no problem with negative ads themselves.


I have seen negative McCain ads, and him refusing to talk about the issues, though.

McCain does talk about the issues. He talks constantly about the economy, health care, Iraq, the war on terror, etc. But he has also exposed Barack Obama for who he is - and the Obama campaign's response is to fallaciously claim that he is doing this INSTEAD of talking about the issues, when in reality he is doing both.

Belphegor
10-25-2008, 02:26 PM
Aberrant is still right about it being a requirement for servicemen, regardless of what patriotic song it is. The drill is pretty much stop whatever you're doing and go to parade rest on bugle calls, and salute on songs, which are pseudo-randomly played after the bugle calls.I am military, I know this.

Mookster
10-25-2008, 06:52 PM
I just think it's dogma bull. It's clear that Obama is enthralled in the presentation, regardless of where his hands are; the reason for the symbolic gesture is being warped from a show of good will and integrity toward the whole of America, to a paranoid mob mentality worried about someone threatening their uniformity.
I know that sounds harsh Aberrant, but it's my take on the matter.

Aberrant
10-25-2008, 07:06 PM
It's all good, we all have our opinions. I just find it hard to trust a person who wants to run the country that can't pay attention to the little details associated with the job.

Mookster
10-25-2008, 07:09 PM
The whole thing is a bit ironic, I know.

CrazyGerbilEater
10-27-2008, 07:11 AM
Show us these negative Obama ads. I know I haven't seen any on TV, and I live in a key battleground state. I have seen negative McCain ads, and him refusing to talk about the issues, though.

i have to say there are a crapload of them on the radio and on tv here. it ****ing pisses me off, in fact he puts it on all the good channels at the same time roughly, so i can't even switch channels to avoid it. I basicly have to turn off the tv for 5 minutes a couple times a day, and i watch tv maybe 2 hours every other day.

the ads may not appear to be insulting to an idiot, but their very obvious since all they talk about is how mccains doing this or that and how its bad or somthing then that fag obama comes and say blah blah blah i endorse this crap.

im sick of them, i hardly ever see a mccain one.

ap0litist0s
10-27-2008, 08:02 AM
+1 for the black guy

Dyndrilliac
10-27-2008, 01:45 PM
the ads may not appear to be insulting to an idiot, but their very obvious since all they talk about is how mccains doing this or that and how its bad or somthing then that fag obama comes and say blah blah blah i endorse this crap.You obviously don't know what a negative ad is. Obama successfully tying McCain to policies that aren't working and haven't work for the past eight years (via legitimate references to his voting record) and then telling you what we should be doing instead isn't a negative ad. It's talking about the issues, which is completely legitimate. An example of a negative ad is McCain using Biden's statements from an Obama/Biden rally against them out of context, where Biden said that a young and inexperienced (but also talented and qualified) president was sure to be tested in one way or another, but that he was absolutely sure that Obama could handle it otherwise he wouldn't have joined as his running mate. The McCain ad conveniently left off that last little bit. That is a negative ad, it does nothing except monger fear and distrust, and McCain should be spending his time on the issues, where the vast majority of Americans believe he is grossly out of touch.

Before you go spouting your mouth off, try to be well versed on the conversation at hand.

Raistlin
10-27-2008, 01:54 PM
Obama successfully tying McCain to policies that aren't working and haven't work for the past eight years (via legitimate references to his voting record) and then telling you what we should be doing instead isn't a negative ad.

If an ad says something negative about your opponent, it is classified as a negative ad. If it is negative for McCain to factually point out alliances that Obama is intentionally concealing from the public, it is certainly negative to dismiss McCain as a clone of a previous president whose reputation the Democrats have already ruined in the public's perception (by calling him a liar for eight years when they had said the same thing he did...).

Dyndrilliac
10-27-2008, 02:39 PM
That's not true, it is impossible to not say something that someone may deem negative (either because it is truthfully negative, or because they are some ridiculous political fanboy) when comparing the candidate the ad endorses to an opposing candidate (because the comparisons naturally imply that one candidate's positions are better for the country than the other). If that were true, all ads drawing comparisons between candidates are negative ads, which is completely ignorant.

The fact of the matter is, McCain himself said that he voted with the president 90% of the time, more often than a lot of his own GOP colleagues. Refreshing the public on that fact isn't negative, it's the truth. I do however agree that McCain tying Obama to Ayers and whoever else also isn't negative provided the ad also provides the necessary evidence, but I also don't believe being tied to someone who stood up for an unjust war is such a bad thing, and people who weren't around in the Vietnam era really have no basis to form an opinion anyway. Our government doesn't always do the right thing, some people take it upon themselves to do more drastic actions than others to bring it to an end. That is between them and their own conscience.

CrazyGerbilEater
10-27-2008, 04:07 PM
if the ad simply exists to put your opponent in a negative light, im pretty sure you've got a definition of a negative ad.

also the ads do not say why his views are bad, it basicly says, McCain hates children.....I'm Barack Fuctard, and I endorse this message.

Edit
this is interesting, i can't find any of obamas attack ads that run in my state, I remember specificly one where it literaly says McCain hates children, and obama endorsed it....but not on youtube....GOD DAMN CENSORSHIP lol

Dyndrilliac
10-27-2008, 06:31 PM
You're an idiot. All political ads are designed to make one candidate appear superior to another, and thus by definition put someone in a "negative light". Not all political ads are negative, however. There is a difference between a legitimate political advertisement and a clearly illegitimate ad-hominem attack ad.

Unless you can provide example clips of aired ads that say explicitly that "McCain hates children" and that are endorsed by Obama or the DNC, you are not contributing to the discussion at hand.

Raistlin
10-27-2008, 08:15 PM
That's not true
But it is. That is literally how they measure whether an ad is negative or positive. If it says anything negative about your opponent, it is a negative ad. If it focuses on your own policies, record, etc., it is positive. This is the same standard they use when they judge the number of McCain's negative ads.

The fact of the matter is, McCain himself said that he voted with the president 90% of the time, more often than a lot of his own GOP colleagues. Refreshing the public on that fact isn't negative, it's the truth.
Setting aside an easy but lengthy debate on Obama's point, it is an attack meant to cause people to view McCain negatively - hence, a negative ad.

I do however agree that McCain tying Obama to Ayers and whoever else also isn't negative provided the ad also provides the necessary evidence, but I also don't believe being tied to someone who stood up for an unjust war is such a bad thing, and people who weren't around in the Vietnam era really have no basis to form an opinion anyway. Our government doesn't always do the right thing, some people take it upon themselves to do more drastic actions than others to bring it to an end. That is between them and their own conscience.
"Between them and their own conscience"? For a man who hates America - not the Vietnam War, but America and capitalism in general - to bomb the Capital, bomb the Pentagon, bomb a judge's home, bomb a courthouse, and plan to bomb the White House, is bad. Any child understands this. Ayers wasn't just anti-Vietnam War, he was and is anti-American. We are talking about a man who was photographed stomping on an American flag in 2001. I encourage you to read more about where he stands at The Slipping Mask (http://www.theslippingmask.com). Each fact is documented and you are linked straight to the source (CNN and many others, no Fox News) to confirm for yourself.

Now that we have cleared up the fact that Ayers is an anti-American radical and not simply a Vietnam War protester who happened to set bombs, let's note a few more of Obama's allies over the last twenty years:

Bernadine Dohrn - the wife of William Ayers and a fellow anti-American radical. You can read all about her at the site I mentioned.

Tony Rezko - a criminally convicted slumlord who operated out of Chicago, and a seventeen-year friend of Obama. Rezko gave Obama $250,000 and Obama funelled millions of dollars in subsidies to Rezko when he was in the Illinios legislature. He also wrote letters on behalf of Rezko's "developments" (slums). Obama's Chicago mansion? It was purchased in a joint transaction with the slumlord Rezko, who facilitated the purchase (and bought Obama a $500,000 extension to the mansions's back yard). All of this while it was Obama's job to protect the citizens of his district from slumlords like Rezko.

Jeremiah Wright - an openly racist and anti-American "preacher" whose belief system is described by Wright-endorsed author James Cone as one that says God must be for black people and against white people, and that a god who is not against white people must be killed (meanwhile he uses the money of his mostly poor black congregation to live in a mansion in an all-white neighborhood). Obama called Wright his mentor, followed his teachings for twenty years, was married by Wright, put his kids through Wright's sermons, named his book on inspiration from Wright, and funneled money to Wright from his position on the board of the Woods Fund with William Ayers.

Raila Odinga - the cousin of Barack Obama and the Marxist leader of the Democratic Orange Party in Kenya. Also a persecutor of Christians and a sympathizer of Muslim extremists, he entered into an agreement to institute Sharia law in Kenya, refuse extradition of terrorists to foreign countries like the United States, and appoint their leader to a prominent position in his cabinet if he was elected. Obama traveled to Kenya at taxpayer expense and campaigned for his cousin Odinga. Odinga's campaign (including his message of "change") was modeled after Obama's. After losing the election, Odinga set his followers to the streets with machetes, killing men, women, and children, and burning numerous churches, including one with the congregation locked inside. Under threat of further violence, he demanded and received the position of Prime Minister in his victorious opponent's administration.

Frank Marshall Davis - a Communist party member and Obama's high school mentor. Obama coyly referred to him only as "Frank" in his book, but later admitted that "Frank" was indeed Frank Marshall Davis (which had already been clear to many based on his description of the man).

The Marxists at college - according to Obama's book, he sought them out. It is interesting to note the progression here. As a child he went to a madrasse in Indonesia. In high school he was mentored by a Communist. In college he sought out the Marxists. And while still in college he allied himself with William Ayers, an alliance that continued throughout the duration of his ascent into politics. During this time he allied himself with numerous other "interesting" people, some of whom are above and below on this list. His continual progression of indoctrination and alliances is a clear, factual picture of where this man is coming from.

The New Party - a socialist party formed by the Chicago DSA. Obama was a member of the New Party and attended numerous DSA meetings.

Rashid Khalidi - an anti-Isreal Yasser Arafat apologist and long-time friend of Obama.

ACORN - Obama "organized" with them (ie, intimidated banks into giving high-risk loans) early in his career, and later funelled education money to them from his position as the Chair of the CAC with William Ayers. Most recently he funelled $800,000 to them through his presidential campaign, through a subsidiary group, and lied on his FEC filing about what they were being paid to do. He claimed that the money was for "stage and lighting" (they do not do this type of work), and upon getting busted was forced to admit that the $800,000 was for voter registration work and that the money went to ACORN. ACORN is currently registering thousands upon thousands of fake and dead people to vote all over the country. Connect the dots.

Marilyn Katz - a long-time friend of William Ayers since the time of the "Days of Rage" riots. She was the "head of security" for the socialist "Students for a Democratic Society" (the group from which the Weatherman Underground formed) and organized the tactics of throwing nails in front of police cars, throwing urine and feces, etc. She was the organizer of the anti-war demonstration where Obama was invited to make first major foray into public speaking. She is on Obama's Campaign Finance Committee.

and people who weren't around in the Vietnam era really have no basis to form an opinion anyway
Huh?

Dyndrilliac
10-27-2008, 10:31 PM
The idea that a political ad that touches on legitimate issues and compares two candidates is the same as a negative attack ad is ridiculous, and it only shows how out of touch with reality that you are. Like I said, it's impossible for an ad that compares two opposing candidates and endorses one to represent both in a 100% positive light. This does not mean all comparative advertisements are negative. This is a glaring logical fallacy (see "fallacy of accident"). The assumption is based on a faulty premise (and disregards legitimate exceptions), and I would expect an intelligent person to be above such faulty conclusions.

I'm not going to bother debating you on your position on Obama's associations, because it's obvious we disagree and neither of us will succeed in changing the others mind. I honestly don't mind Obama's association with Ayers. It doesn't concern me in the least.

Raistlin
10-27-2008, 11:02 PM
The idea that a political ad that touches on legitimate issues and compares two candidates is the same as a negative attack ad is ridiculous, and it only shows how out of touch with reality that you are.

I'm simply stating a fact regarding how they are frequently measured.


I'm not going to bother debating you on your position on Obama's associations, because it's obvious we disagree and neither of us will succeed in changing the others mind. I honestly don't mind Obama's association with Ayers. It doesn't concern me in the least.

You don't mind him blatantly lying to the American public during a nationally televised presidential debate about the extent of his relationship with Ayers?

And you don't mind him cozying up to a criminal slumlord, exchanging favors to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars when it was his job to protect his district from this man?

And you don't mind him following an openly racist doctrine for twenty years? Doesn't concern you in the least?

And you don't mind him campaigning for his cousin the Marxist Raila Odinga in Kenya, who entered into an agreement with Muslim extremists to institute Sharia law in Kenya, not extradite terrorists to the United States, and put their leader in a position of power in his administration if he won the election?

The list goes on... and you don't mind any of this?

Mobilus
11-01-2008, 05:02 PM
To be honest with you Raistlin, many of us consider McCain's association and apparent alliance with people like Perle, Frum, Kristol and Bush to be worse than even if Obama had Ayers as his secretary of defense or state, and Obama will NOT put Ayers or Rezko in his government so....

Yeah. McCain associating with non-criminal people = worse than Obama associating with former criminals.

Why? Because Perle, Frum, Kristol, Bush, etc., have killed more people and broken more laws and screwed up the world 10000000 times worse than Rezko, Ayers, Wright, combined.