Time to put this to rest...
-
First, I sometimes disagree strongly with other people. But I have found that if I converse respectfully and try to understand the other person's point of view, I often learn that I have quite a bit in common with the person. I hope that can happen to all of us here.
Second, piling on additional arguments, in this case, other things to be perceived to be bad about Obama, has nothing to do with the original point. Adding additional arguments is typically a distraction used when the first argument has been lost. I won't respond to those.
@david. said:
The left defines its own "truth", independent of the actual facts.. e.g., Clinton's "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". That is the way of the leftist.
There are immoral politicians on the left and the right. Here Clinton took advantage of a legalism to technically tell the truth while he deceived the grand jury. That made Bill Clinton look bad. I certainly prefer that to "We don't torture." Which is true only if you change the meaning of torture from what it has always been. That made the United States look bad and it made you and me part of an immoral system that tortures people to find out if they are guilty or innocent.
@david. said:
The Ayers quote is "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."
First, note the three little dots. That's where the reporter took out some other words. It could be that those words did not change the implication and Bill Ayers wishes he had set more bombs and that he wishes he could have caused death and injury. It also could be that the two sentences were not related and that they were put together to deceive. All of us know that the press sometimes deceives. To find out what his meaning was, the best we can do is read other things he has said and written. NONE of that indicates what is implied.
@david. said:
Assume Timothy McVeigh had been acquitted because of an error on the part of law enforcement (rather than being convicted and executed). If McCain had his political career opening at the home of McVeigh,
If in your example, 1) McVeigh had caused damage to property in an attempt to stop an immoral war instead of killing 168 and injuring 450 of which 19 were children in a day care, as part of his white supremacist beliefs in order to get revenge for "what the U.S. government did at Waco and Ruby Ridge", AND 2) McVeigh had since become a professor of education at a top university, AND 3) McVeigh had become a widely respected leader involved in making his community better, AND 4) McVeigh had committed those crimes almost 40 years ago, AND 5) McVeigh had hosted one of many fund raising meetings for John McCain who was not a close friend, perhaps then some on
@david. said:
the left would be absolutely hysterical.
But I don't think many would, and I wouldn't.
@david. said:
The question is, what's the difference between the terrorist Ayers and the terrorist McVeigh? Answer: Justice.
Do you really believe that, or is this just partisan rhetoric which distracts us from the real issues?
If you think Obama is the wrong choice for President, is this why, or can you tell us your real reasons?
-
Ron: read the article, (I even posted the link for you :`) You'll find only employees, I would guess temps hired short time, were charged in a few cases. I do think they are past overdue changing their way of reimbursing said employees: paying by the signature surely facilitates fraud.
-
I only responded to this thread because there was so little presentation of the other side. I believe I read somewhere else a comparison to "liberal love fest". So true. Schreiber has completely validated my description of the left and it's lack of reliance on truth and facts. There is no moral direction, no right and wrong, no ethical foundation. Just whatever makes one feel good. The left can happily condone millions of abortions of the innocent while expressing outrage about displacing a polar bear. A terrorist or murderer can be respected and contributing member of society as long as he has a PhD, written a few books, etc. Laziness is to be rewarded by taking from those that are independent and self reliant. Those are misguided rationalizations. I don't intend to try to understand it and I won't try to convince the leftists to see things my way. For me, I plan to annoy as many liberal leftists as I can by working hard and being happy.
-
Similar reaction over here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/12/uselections2008-sarahpalin -
Tom, not only did I read the Wikipedia ACORN page, I also scanned through the talk page, in which there are interesting discussions related to accuracy and bias. Kinda gives one a little background on how Wikipedia is edited and how they strive for impartiality.
ACORN is a left leaning organization. There's nothing wrong with that. I just want this to be acknowledged. Since they are being investigated for voter fraud in 4 or 5 states, I would call this a politically corrupt organization.
-
Ron,
Maybe we should outlaw groups guilty of voter fraud, but that may include the Dems and GOP. Here's a video on them both.
BBC NEWS | Programmes | Newsnight | US election: fake voter claims
As the US presidential election enters its final weeks, journalist Greg Palast reports on how both Democrats and Republicans are accusing each other of election fraud.
(news.bbc.co.uk)
Peter
-
@pbacot said:
Ron,
Maybe we should outlaw groups guilty of voter fraud, but that may include the Dems and GOP. Here's a video on them both.
BBC NEWS | Programmes | Newsnight | US election: fake voter claims
As the US presidential election enters its final weeks, journalist Greg Palast reports on how both Democrats and Republicans are accusing each other of election fraud.
(news.bbc.co.uk)
Peter
Peter, voter fraud is voter fraud. The whole matter sickens me as it should all Americans. I have no doubt BOTH the Republicans and Democrats are guilty of this. However, I can't think of a right leaning organization that would be the counterpart to ACORN. If it exists, I would like to know. Seriously.
-
I think with less than a month to election day we are all wearing rose colored glasses:
Which only allow us to see our own point of view.
and if by chance we take those glasses off then our blinders:
Will prevent us from looking in the wrong direction.
As I read these posts I find myself agreeing only with the ones that espouse the same ideology that I subscribe to. I wish we were all a bit more flexible or that the issues that divide us were not so divisive but that's not reality.
Reality is that this country is in a far worse situation than anyone would of, could of, should of imagined. Thankfully which ever candidate is elected they will have NO CHOICE but to take us in a new direction.
Let's all agree to make a wish that the next president has the desire, ability, and backbone to make the necessary changes to get "OUR" country back on the right course for financial, and moral, and ethical leadership.
-
Harvey Leroy "Lee" Atwater (February 27, 1951 – March 29, 1991) was an American political consultant and strategist to the Republican party. He was an advisor of U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. He was also a political mentor and close friend of Republican strategist Karl Rove. Atwater invented or improved upon many of the techniques of modern electoral politics, including promulgating unflattering rumors and attempting to drive up opponents' "negative" poll numbers with the aggressive use of opposition research. He has been characterized as the "happy hatchet man" and "Darth Vader" of the Republican Party. In spite of criticisms of Atwater's tactics as unethical and dirty tricks, he was widely regarded as a near-brilliant political operative who helped candidates to win. Karl Rove used such smear tactics in the 2004 election causing a seven polling point drop for John Kerry just days before the election with his "swift boat" scandal that proved to be all lies after the fact.
Lies vs Fraud ... You decide.
-
I think lies and fraud are a world apart. Both sides lie, always have, always will. This is why I can't stand the negative ads. I agree with Tom here in that slight dishonesty or not telling the whole story is tantamount to lying. Fraud is more devious, more nefarious.
Lee Atwater was doing what political operatives have been doing for years. I'm not excusing him, I explaining him, I guess. Look at how Obama gained his Senate seat. He used underhanded, yet perfectly legal, means. What's the difference?
-
Chill guys! This will make you laugh
http://www.hopelessgeek.com/2008/10/10/careful-america -
LOL...Wow is that uncanny or what? I'll never watch King of the Hill the same way again.
-
@david. said:
I only responded to this thread because there was so little presentation of the other side. I believe I read somewhere else a comparison to "liberal love fest". So true. Schreiber has completely validated my description of the left and it's lack of reliance on truth and facts. There is no moral direction, no right and wrong, no ethical foundation. Just whatever makes one feel good. The left can happily condone millions of abortions of the innocent while expressing outrage about displacing a polar bear. A terrorist or murderer can be respected and contributing member of society as long as he has a PhD, written a few books, etc. Laziness is to be rewarded by taking from those that are independent and self reliant. Those are misguided rationalizations. I don't intend to try to understand it and I won't try to convince the leftists to see things my way. For me, I plan to annoy as many liberal leftists as I can by working hard and being happy.
You make many assumptions about the left which are wrong. I presume you aren't stupid or evil, but that you can learn and that you want the best for this country and for the world.
If you try to understand the views of other people, you may find that you can work with them and accomplish good. If you assume that they are totally unlike you and that there is no way to relate to them, that will contribute to the dysfunctional society we live in now.
-
Hi,
You guys might like to take a look at this link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1076957/MELANIE-PHILIPS-Everyone-destroy-Palin--Obamas-past-examine.htmlRegards
Mr S -
God i love the daily mail, only they could start an article with "With all eyes glued to the collapse of global capitalism as we know it..."
-
@mr s said:
Hi,
You guys might like to take a look at this link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1076957/MELANIE-PHILIPS-Everyone-destroy-Palin--Obamas-past-examine.htmlRegards
Mr SJust did. It repeats a number of charges which I feel have been addressed about Obama. Some of those charges are legitimate and are legitimate weaknesses of Obama, others are silly. All are over blown in true British tabloid style. The fact that we already know about them belies the accusation that the "liberal media" is hiding them.
I'm amazed that it seems so terrible that there are "dozens of reporters feverishly combing Alaska for any evidence to tarnish Sarah Palin." We have been examining the other candidates for years or decades. Palin was an unknown when we first heard her name. She's running for Vice President of the most powerful nation on earth, my nation. She is statistically more likely to become President than any VP before her. Doesn't it seem that her record should be "feverishly combed"?
Similar over blown articles are written from the left. I read some of those too. I prefer to look at significant facts which relate to how the candidate might govern. Check out this graph. The source is Parade Magazine, the Sunday supplement which comes with our conservative local paper.
Here's a clearer graphic with the same data. Searching the Internet, I don't see any serious refutation of the facts presented.
If you prefer one chart over the other, those are significant differences which we could and should discuss.
-
John, we get Parade as well and I saw this graph. What this graph does not show is Obama intends to raise the capital gains rate from 15% to "as much as" 28%. He said this in one of the debates. What the hell does "as much as" mean? I say it means exactly 28%. You talk about having a chilling effect on investments and growth.
-
i know i am a newbie here, but under Obama's plan, why is my family being penalized for making more money?
FYI - my wife is the one who's job pushes us into the higher tax bracket.
-
@dcke88 said:
i know i am a newbie here, but under Obama's plan, why is my family being penalized for making more money?
Because you can afford to give more.
-
Advertisement