Slam McCain/Palin (merged)

[Von Tonner]

This is hilarious - it will have you rolling in the aisle. A compilation of skits from the last debate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/10/the-mccain-wander_n_133775.html

(apologies to Dion)





Well I roam from town to town, I go through life without a care,
And I'm as happy as a clown,
With my two fists of iron, but I'm goin' nowhere.
Yeah I'm the type of guy that likes to roam around
I'm never in one place I roam from town to town
And I'm a wanderer, yeah I'm a wanderer
I roam around around around around hmmm

[Skybird]

Give that man a map with a clear marking on it! :D

[Morts]

he's looking for a way out !:rotfl:

[Dowly]

ROFL! :rotfl:

[Von Tonner]

Obama's tenuous 'guilt by association' relationship with Bill Ayers is somehow more damning than this:o

The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American Government and I won't be buried under their damn flag - Joe Vogler AIP founder member
“My government is my worst enemy. I’m going to fight them with any means at hand.” This was former revolutionary terrorist Bill Ayers back in his old Weather Underground days, right? Imagine what Sarah Palin is going to do with this incendiary quote as she tears into Barack Obama this week.
Only one problem. The quote is from Joe Vogler, the raging anti-American who founded the Alaska Independence Party. Inconveniently for Palin, that’s the very same secessionist party that her husband, Todd, belonged to for seven years and that she sent a shout-out to as Alaska governor earlier this year. (“Keep up the good work,” Palin told AIP members. “And God bless you.”)
Vogler’s greatest moment of glory was to be his 1993 appearance before the United Nations to denounce United States “tyranny” before the entire world and to demand Alaska’s freedom. The Alaska secessionist had persuaded the government of Iran to sponsor his anti-American harangue.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/10/07/palins_unamerican/index.html

Palin and Chryson discovered they could be useful to each other. Palin would be running for mayor, while Chryson was about to take over the chairmanship of the Alaska Independence Party, which at its peak in 1990 had managed to elect a governor.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/10/palin_chryson/

Now, watch the movie capturing the Palin's relationship with the AIP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eniG9l_7its

[AVGWarhawk]

Troopergate, AIP, Rev Wright and Ayers are just another distraction from the real issues. If I were to grade the media on coverage and unbiased opinions for the past 18 months, every one of news stations would fail miserably. Lets face it, the media coverage on the campaign has done nothing but distract in the name of ratings.

In all reality, I think Obama and Palin have been probed sufficiently. I see more of a blind eye turned towards Obama past. He receives a bye after bye on everything. As far as McCain and Biden, both have been in he public eye over 20 years. There is no story there. But, people are so concerned that McCain will croak and Palin will run the country. She is the #2 after all. However, Obama's past is scrutinzed and he is the #1 running the country if elected. The balance sheet does not add up. If this campaign was so cut and dry, Obama would have a huge lead. He does not. Why is that?


So, I vote we throw the whole lot out of the race and start fresh:up:


Von Tonner, please explain to me why Obama, who is covered favorably by the majority of the news media, is not ahead by leaps and bounds? What is the ultimate underlying cause of this tight race?

[kurtz]

Von Tonner, please explain to me why Obama, who is covered favorably by the majority of the news media, is not ahead by leaps and bounds? What is the ultimate underlying cause of this tight race?

Are you saying you shouldn't vote for Obama because other people aren't voting for Obama?

Don't get me wrong I'm pretty neutral on these issues, other than thinking palins pretty hot:cool:

[Skybird]

Lets face it, the media coverage on the campaign has done nothing but distract in the name of ratings.

I would say the campaining circus itself has done nothing but distract in the name of ratings - and it is designed and inteded to do that.

-----

I would not talk of "un-american" activities, for two reasons. First, Palin holds the American citizenship, which is a formality, but formally her activities are that of an American, and anyway: who would define what is american and un-American behavior? And second, for historical reasons: the Nazis tried to "verunglimpfen" (disparage?) everything that did not fit into their world view or was critical of Nazi idelogy as "undeutsch", there was un-German art, and un-german literature, and not supporting the Führer of course also was un-german. You cannot evade this comparsion like you cannot evade the linking of the Swastika to Nazi symbology, although it has existed before.

[AVGWarhawk]

Von Tonner, please explain to me why Obama, who is covered favorably by the majority of the news media, is not ahead by leaps and bounds? What is the ultimate underlying cause of this tight race?

Are you saying you shouldn't vote for Obama because other people aren't voting for Obama?

Don't get me wrong I'm pretty neutral on these issues, other than thinking palins pretty hot:cool:

I'm not saying anything or looking to sway a vote. I just find it amazing the media on Obama is very pro Obama. Yet, the race is very tight. Why is it that at least 4 major media stations (ABC, NBC, MSNBC and CNN) as opposed to FOX have been pushing Obama like crack, yet, the race is tight?

Palin is hot. Cindy McCain is hotter and she owns a beer factory. I guess for some this is enough for a vote. I'm not sure.

[AVGWarhawk]

Lets face it, the media coverage on the campaign has done nothing but distract in the name of ratings.

I would say the campaining circus itself has done nothing but distract in the name of ratings - and it is designed and inteded to do that.

-----

I would not talk of "un-american" activities, for two reasons. First, Palin holds the American citizenship, which is a formality, but formally her activities are that of an American, and anyway: who would define what is american and un-American behavior? And second, for historical reasons: the Nazis tried to "verunglimpfen" (disparage?) everything that did not fit into their world view or was critical of Nazi idelogy as "undeutsch", there was un-German art, and un-german literature, and not supporting the Führer of course also was un-german. You cannot evade this comparsion like you cannot evade the linking of the Swastika to Nazi symbology, although it has existed before.

The Swastika is and will always be villafied and rightly so. Certainly, American and Un-American can be defined but there will always be a shade of gray. The reason is it is our right to have a shade of gray. Everyone disparage things that do not fit into their world or how the world should be in their view. It is human nature to do so.

[Von Tonner]

Lets face it, the media coverage on the campaign has done nothing but distract in the name of ratings.
I would say the campaining circus itself has done nothing but distract in the name of ratings - and it is designed and inteded to do that.

-----

I would not talk of "un-american" activities, for two reasons. First, Palin holds the American citizenship, which is a formality, but formally her activities are that of an American, and anyway: who would define what is american and un-American behavior? And second, for historical reasons: the Nazis tried to "verunglimpfen" (disparage?) everything that did not fit into their world view or was critical of Nazi idelogy as "undeutsch", there was un-German art, and un-german literature, and not supporting the Führer of course also was un-german. You cannot evade this comparsion like you cannot evade the linking of the Swastika to Nazi symbology, although it has existed before.
Yes and no. Firstly, if the argument is: choose between A party or B party and both parties are presenting arguments WITHIN the system then yes, that is not un-American. And as you correctly point out Skybird parties have called other parties WITHIN the system un-patriotic on policy issues because it rallies their base. We had it here in SA between the far right and the left for years. If you voted for the opposition you were un-South African. The AIP is different - it calls for a WITHDRAWALL from the political sytem (i.e. the USA). This is a totaly different ball game from playing WITHIN the system. This says you want 'out' - and as such, the un- prefix is then quite is justifiiable.

[Von Tonner]

Von Tonner, please explain to me why Obama, who is covered favorably by the majority of the news media, is not ahead by leaps and bounds? What is the ultimate underlying cause of this tight race?
Ok, firstly if one looks at the electoral vote polling it is a landside. And I don't mean that as a cheap shot - I just want to get it out of the way.

Here is my take, maybe I am wrong, but I really believe that there is a paradigm shift economically and politically running through the world. Anyone who believes otherwise does so at their peril. This implies change. Change by nature is a venture into the unknown. It holds perils, fears, uncertainty, dangers - all things that make those who want to hold onto their comfort zone difficult to bring on board. You have to sell them the opportunities and safety the change can be to them.

I am looking at your question from a South African perspective. We had as South Africans a major 'change moment' a few years back. Nelson Mandela was released from jail and we had been fed the garbage from the media that he was the devil reincarnated but you know what, he became the president and followed a policy of reconcilliation that stunned the world. We were blessed as a country that after all the years he spent in jail for his beliefs in equality he harboured no ill will to those whites who put him there. And we have prospored as a nation.

The USA, IMO, in Obama, has this same magical moment - cometh the hour, cometh the man. Yes, you have racists in the USA who are not in anyway going to vote for Obama no matter how much his fiscal policies could benifit them. But history is, like in SA, unfortunately against them.

[Frame57]

Von Tonner, please explain to me why Obama, who is covered favorably by the majority of the news media, is not ahead by leaps and bounds? What is the ultimate underlying cause of this tight race?
Ok, firstly if one looks at the electoral vote polling it is a landside. And I don't mean that as a cheap shot - I just want to get it out of the way.

Here is my take, maybe I am wrong, but I really believe that there is a paradigm shift economically and politically running through the world. Anyone who believes otherwise does so at their peril. This implies change. Change by nature is a venture into the unknown. It holds perils, fears, uncertainty, dangers - all things that make those who want to hold onto their comfort zone difficult to bring on board. You have to sell them the opportunities and safety the change can be to them.

I am looking at your question from a South African perspective. We had as South Africans a major 'change moment' a few years back. Nelson Mandela was released from jail and we had been fed the garbage from the media that he was the devil reincarnated but you know what, he became the president and followed a policy of reconcilliation that stunned the world. We were blessed as a country that after all the years he spent in jail for his beliefs in equality he harboured no ill will to those whites who put him there. And we have prospored as a nation.

The USA, IMO, in Obama, has this same magical moment - cometh the hour, cometh the man. Yes, you have racists in the USA who are not in anyway going to vote for Obama no matter how much his fiscal policies could benifit them. But history is, like in SA, unfortunately against them.So, anyone who does not vote for Obama is a racists???:hmm:

[Von Tonner]

Von Tonner, please explain to me why Obama, who is covered favorably by the majority of the news media, is not ahead by leaps and bounds? What is the ultimate underlying cause of this tight race?
Ok, firstly if one looks at the electoral vote polling it is a landside. And I don't mean that as a cheap shot - I just want to get it out of the way.

Here is my take, maybe I am wrong, but I really believe that there is a paradigm shift economically and politically running through the world. Anyone who believes otherwise does so at their peril. This implies change. Change by nature is a venture into the unknown. It holds perils, fears, uncertainty, dangers - all things that make those who want to hold onto their comfort zone difficult to bring on board. You have to sell them the opportunities and safety the change can be to them.

I am looking at your question from a South African perspective. We had as South Africans a major 'change moment' a few years back. Nelson Mandela was released from jail and we had been fed the garbage from the media that he was the devil reincarnated but you know what, he became the president and followed a policy of reconcilliation that stunned the world. We were blessed as a country that after all the years he spent in jail for his beliefs in equality he harboured no ill will to those whites who put him there. And we have prospored as a nation.

The USA, IMO, in Obama, has this same magical moment - cometh the hour, cometh the man. Yes, you have racists in the USA who are not in anyway going to vote for Obama no matter how much his fiscal policies could benifit them. But history is, like in SA, unfortunately against them.So, anyone who does not vote for Obama is a racists???:hmm:

That is not what I said. But believe me, anyone who goes into that polling booth and pulls the lever against Obama knowing in their hearts that his fiscal policies will put food on their tables - yes, you ARE a RACIST!!!

[Type941]

http://i.current.com/images/asset/893/975/21/i4btFF.jpeg


This is popping up now in Amerika. Free speech West Plains Missouri style. Welcome to Racism ya'll gotcha wink wink I'm Sarah Palin and I approve this message. I love it how they put 'hussein' in qoutation marks. Thats a chance alright from McCain, GOP and Co.


here's another one, just for fun.

http://static.crooksandliars.com/files/movieimages/2008/10/6567.dl.jpg

These goddamn racist need to just start wearing their hoods and yell white power. Talk about history making full circle. Bloody hell, what Palin-McCain is saying in those rallies?!! Is GOP a party of racist (n. haters as they'd put it surely?!). I'm astonished at how far down America has come since August 2008. Truly shocked.

[Morts]

gun regulations !? how the hell could that hurt america ?
oh boo-hoo you might not be able to get an assault rifle or a machinegun !?

[Digital_Trucker]

Wait a minute, if I'm against abortions, same sex marriage and gun control I'm a racist? If I vote against a black man because I don't believe in what he stands for I'm a racist?

What are you talking about here Von Tonner and Type941? And exactly what does that second picture prove 941? Absolutely nothing except that the guy doesn't like Obama or his supporters. The first one, I'll give ya, the picture is pretty racially oriented, the message below it is nowhere near being racist.

[SUBMAN1]

Digital Trucker - what you should find most humorous is the fact that a South African is talking about un-American activities! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

That's just fricking hallarious! :D :rotfl:

-S

[Digital_Trucker]

Is there a contest of half reading out there and nobody told me ?
Not at all, just a few folks who don't go along with the idea that Obama's "fiscal policy" (whatever that is or will be) is guaranteed to make things better. Also disagreeing with the second pic of 941's being exemplary of racism.

Edit : The implication made on the part of both is that it is a given that Obama is the best choice and anyone who can't see that and doesn't vote for him is a racist. Also, not to defend racists, but who do you folks expect racists to support, the white guy or the black guy? Is it truly surprising that they support the white guy? Does that make anyone who supports the white guy racist?

[SUBMAN1]

On the racists issue - for every white guy who is racists that won't vote for Obama, there is a black guy who is racists that will, and they probably outnumber the white guys 2 to 1 in todays world, so I don't buy that.

-S

[Thomen]

Maybe it's me not reading too well, what I understood from Von Tonner's post is that the guy who is aware (regardless of whether it's true or not) that Obama's policy will be better for him and yet doesn't vote for him, is a racist. I don't see any surprise that indeed racist guys won't vote Obama.
And if Tom is 30yo, that doesn't mean that all 30yo men are named Tom. Nobody said that white guys voting for McCain do it only because of skin color.
The first picture by Type941 is typical of free speech turned into freedom to be openly racist. In many countries that sort of thing would bring the author to jail or at least a hefty fine. Some would call that an "attack on free-speech", others would simply call that "assuming one's act".
I must say I'm pretty disgusted.

So, what is with the people that vote for Obama BECAUSE he is black? That, imo, makes them racist too, does it not?

[Digital_Trucker]

The first pic (the pic and above) is indeed racist and disgusting. The message below is not.

The problem, as I see it, with the concept that anyone who knows that Obama's policies are better and doesn't vote for him being racist is that no one can know that Obama's policies will be better for them because no one can know what Obama's policies are until he's elected. Perhaps I read too much into Von Tonner's tone (now comes the hour - now comes the man, etc).

As for 941's pics, using the second pic as a so called "example" of racism when it indeed is no such thing would lead one to believe that he does indeed think that anyone who is against Obama is a racist. Again, maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that's the way I saw it.

[baggygreen]

I can't wait til the bloody election is over. Then we can get back to less divisive topics, like religion and the war on terror:rotfl:

[Digital_Trucker]

I can't wait til the bloody election is over. Then we can get back to less divisive topics, like religion and the war on terror:rotfl:

Or should it be terror and the war on religion?:rotfl:

[Task Force]

In my opinion.

1 pic is raceist in my opinion.

2 pic in not raceist, It is just a guy showing that he dosent like Obama, and his followers.

[Skybird]

"I am no racist and I support Obama although he has two kids of dark skin." :88)

McCain claims to defend Obama against republican hate-campaigners - but nevertheless his campaign-managers themselves keep on releasing vitriolic spots that throw more and more mud and become more and more personal. Two explanations only are possible, first: he lies and speaks with split tongue to the public, or second: he is not master in his own club-house - in which case you would ask how he could lead a whole nation.

The past two months have been a revelation for me, regarding McCain. Two years ago or so, I maybe would have found him acceptable and respectable. but his campaign style that he allows and helps to push forward has turned him into one of the most disgusting and unrespected figures of politics that I know of. And it seems from week to week he degenerates a bit more. A moral imposter he is, much like Palin. Seen that way, he maybe picked his soul-mate without realising it.

the second picture that some guys here declare as non-racist, reminds of the good old slogans in windows and doors of German shops and restaurants, some time ago: "No service for Jews". And after all, that guy is excluding 40-60% of the voting population, and probably at least as many people of the non-voting camp.

[AVGWarhawk]

Maybe it's me not reading too well, what I understood from Von Tonner's post is that the guy who is aware (regardless of whether it's true or not) that Obama's policy will be better for him and yet doesn't vote for him, is a racist. I don't see any surprise that indeed racist guys won't vote Obama.
And if Tom is 30yo, that doesn't mean that all 30yo men are named Tom. Nobody said that white guys voting for McCain do it only because of skin color.
The first picture by Type941 is typical of free speech turned into freedom to be openly racist. In many countries that sort of thing would bring the author to jail or at least a hefty fine. Some would call that an "attack on free-speech", others would simply call that "assuming one's act".
I must say I'm pretty disgusted.

So, what is with the people that vote for Obama BECAUSE he is black? That, imo, makes them racist too, does it not?

Yes, there are black American that will vote Obama because he is black. Howard Stern (I know, just a crazy disk jockey) went to a predominatly black neighborhood and interviews blacks. He asked if they agreed with a list of policies. They agreed with all of them. However, these policies were McCains. Then they were asked if they are voting Obama. They all said yes. So, are they really looking at the issues or just the man? Obviously just the man. Is it racist? Not really IMO, just stupidity. I believe this goes hand in hand when a white will not vote Obama because he is black. Just more stupidity.

[SUBMAN1]

I love this! Look at all these Europeans who have no clue what goes on in America, pretending they know what goes on in America! You guys are killing me! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

-S

[magic452]

He was just working on the theory that if you keep moving you won't sink.
The BS was getting pretty deep by this time.:rotfl:

Two politicians the same sage can do that. :o

[Skybird]

So, are they really looking at the issues or just the man? Obviously just the man.
Serves McCain right. Isn't his camp telling openly that they are not about issues, but personalities? ;)

[Rockin Robbins]

OOOOOOO, two points for Skybird there on a short post. McCain and company have done a very poor job of communication. They should have outed Obama long ago and got that out of the way and accepted as truth, especially in regard to his true function as a community organizer, a story yet to emerge.

But AFTER that was done, it is their responsibility to communicate a compelling vision of what America is and where we are going. Especially in the last debate, chance after chance escaped McCain to make vital and important points to communicate the vision. He passed every time. If for no reason than that he has not communicated well, McCain deserves to be behind. I'll vote for him, but I expect that he will lose. At this point, he doesn't deserve to win.

[Konovalov]

I would agree on the above from RR. Too many mixed messages being sent out by the McCain campaign. Their strategy looks all too confused. I doubt that they can pull it back from here.

Also there have been a hell of a lot of ugly looking scenes at McCain/Palin rallies and town hall meetings which aren't exactly going to turn on swing/undecided voters.

[AVGWarhawk]

So, are they really looking at the issues or just the man? Obviously just the man. Serves McCain right. Isn't his camp telling openly that they are not about issues, but personalities? ;)

It is always a popularity contest. It harkens back to high school. The school brain with an IQ of 180 will not beat the football jock. Show Obama in a unfavorable light concerning his association and he becomes unpopular. Just another tactic in politicians bags of tricks.

[Skybird]

Also there have been a hell of a lot of ugly looking scenes at McCain/Palin rallies and town hall meetings which aren't exactly going to turn on swing/undecided voters.

You mean the long anti-Palin Booooh at the hockey opener? http://www.smileygarden.de/smilie/Frech/smileymania.at_10391.gif (http://www.smileygarden.de)

[AVGWarhawk]

OOOOOOO, two points for Skybird there on a short post. McCain and company have done a very poor job of communication. They should have outed Obama long ago and got that out of the way and accepted as truth, especially in regard to his true function as a community organizer, a story yet to emerge.

But AFTER that was done, it is their responsibility to communicate a compelling vision of what America is and where we are going. Especially in the last debate, chance after chance escaped McCain to make vital and important points to communicate the vision. He passed every time. If for no reason than that he has not communicated well, McCain deserves to be behind. I'll vote for him, but I expect that he will lose. At this point, he doesn't deserve to win.

It is not over yet RR. McCain has another chance to drive his point home...if he has one.

[Skybird]

So, are they really looking at the issues or just the man? Obviously just the man. Serves McCain right. Isn't his camp telling openly that they are not about issues, but personalities? ;)

It is always a popularity contest. It harkens back to high school. The school brain with an IQ of 180 will not beat the football jock. Show Obama in a unfavorable light concerning his association and he becomes unpopular. Just another tactic in politicians bags of tricks.
Poisenous little movie there is: "Election" (1999). :D

http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/election?q=election

I often thought of that movie since Palin was introduced.

[AVGWarhawk]

So, are they really looking at the issues or just the man? Obviously just the man. Serves McCain right. Isn't his camp telling openly that they are not about issues, but personalities? ;)
It is always a popularity contest. It harkens back to high school. The school brain with an IQ of 180 will not beat the football jock. Show Obama in a unfavorable light concerning his association and he becomes unpopular. Just another tactic in politicians bags of tricks. Poisenous little movie there is: "Election" (1999). :D

http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/election?q=election

I often thought of that movie since Palin was introduced.

Although I have not seen this movie, I likened Obama campaign in the same light...running for class president.

[Frame57]

Digital Trucker - what you should find most humorous is the fact that a South African is talking about un-American activities! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

That's just fricking hallarious! :D :rotfl:

-SNo doubt, I almost forgot about that one. teah the people who made American Slavery look like Kindergarten.

[Frame57]

Yes that's what he said. If you read only 1 word out of 3.It was in his summary statement... Funny though that everyone thinks that a democrat will put food on their tables. The housing and bank situation was started by them, it started with a thing called "community re-investment". It is bad business to give loans to those who cannot afford them to begin with. Would you give me a personal loan knowing I could not pay it back?

[Digital_Trucker]

So, are they really looking at the issues or just the man? Obviously just the man. Serves McCain right. Isn't his camp telling openly that they are not about issues, but personalities? ;)

As a matter of fact, the answer to that question is no. One of his campaign people said that the CAMPAIGN is not about issues, but is about personalities. As usual, the other side puts their spin on the out of context statement to make it advantageous to themselves.

[Frame57]

I love this! Look at all these Europeans who have no clue what goes on in America, pretending they know what goes on in America! You guys are killing me! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

-SWell, it either shows you that the liberal agenda really is progressive globalism. Or that they are pretty darned bored

[Tchocky]

Yes that's what he said. If you read only 1 word out of 3.It was in his summary statement... Funny though that everyone thinks that a democrat will put food on their tables. The housing and bank situation was started by them, it started with a thing called "community re-investment". It is bad business to give loans to those who cannot afford them to begin with. Would you give me a personal loan knowing I could not pay it back?
Actually, repayment rates are highest among low-income people, they're often better bets than rich people.
The CRA didn't force credit rating agencies to put high ratings on less-than solid debt. It made absolutely no mention of debt trading.
The CRA didn't force hedge funds or invenstment banks to run insane leverage ratios.
THe CRA didn't force homeowners to see a housing bubble as a rock-solid rise in value, and take on high-interest loans in the belief that they could remortgage later.
What it did do was extend lending to lower-income households, which often have lower default rates than higher-income households, partly because the sums invested are lower, and easier to manage.
You can't say that this was started by a single political party in a single country.

[Frame57]

Not a single country. No. In Tancredo's district alone over 100,000 foreclosure alone to illegals. I disagree, the majority of foreclosure are people who would have never qualified with A. Good credit and B. 20% down.

[Flamingboat]

Well, it either shows you that the liberal agenda really is progressive globalism. Or that they are pretty darned bored

So you don't like globalism? I don't see white people lining up to pick vegetables.

[Konovalov]

Also there have been a hell of a lot of ugly looking scenes at McCain/Palin rallies and town hall meetings which aren't exactly going to turn on swing/undecided voters.

You mean the long anti-Palin Booooh at the hockey opener? http://www.smileygarden.de/smilie/Frech/smileymania.at_10391.gif (http://www.smileygarden.de)

Yeah, I viewed that on the tv news last night. Not much love out there on the ice for Governor Palin.

Just read this article in the Times today: McCain tussles with Palin over whipping up a mob mentality (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4926283.ece)

John Weaver, a former senior McCain adviser who left the campaign when it almost imploded in the summer of last year, questioned the purpose of the attacks.

“People need to understand, for moral reasons and the protection of our civil society, that the differences with Senator Obama are ideological, based on clear differences on policy and a lack of experience compared with Senator McCain,” he said.

“And from a purely practical political vantage point, please find me a swing voter, an undecided independent, or a torn female voter that finds an angry mob mentality attractive.”

Can't disagree with that.

[Skybird]

So, are they really looking at the issues or just the man? Obviously just the man. Serves McCain right. Isn't his camp telling openly that they are not about issues, but personalities? ;)

As a matter of fact, the answer to that question is no. One of his campaign people said that the CAMPAIGN is not about issues, but is about personalities. As usual, the other side puts their spin on the out of context statement to make it advantageous to themselves.
Hairsplitting for nothing. For me, campaigners and their campaign is the same. If it isn'T, they have a problem with trustworthiness.

Which is a very widespread problem in politics indeed.

[Digital_Trucker]

So, are they really looking at the issues or just the man? Obviously just the man. Serves McCain right. Isn't his camp telling openly that they are not about issues, but personalities? ;)
As a matter of fact, the answer to that question is no. One of his campaign people said that the CAMPAIGN is not about issues, but is about personalities. As usual, the other side puts their spin on the out of context statement to make it advantageous to themselves. Hairsplitting for nothing. For me, campaigners and their campaign is the same. If it isn'T, they have a problem with trustworthiness.

Which is a very widespread problem in politics indeed.

That's the problem, Sky. The point is that that's the way American politics are. It's never about policies, it's about selling yourself. And it works that way on both sides, so pointing the finger at McCain's camp for telling the truth about the way it is doesn't prove anything except that, on at least this point, they are being honest.

[Skybird]

That doesn't make it any better, or less unacceptable. that way, the basics of a political culture that are needed and essential to give democracy any chance to maike sense, get raped and abused. the result is the micky mouse party that the whole political and mudthrowing is.

That hardly can serve as an argument why this kind of democracy should serve as an example for the world to follow. It is a good argument why one should make sure to reject it.

Politicians that do not act and tell like they mean it, are not meaning what they say and what they do. Such persons do not deserve neither respect, nor trust. they are liars, and voting for them deserves laughs and ridicule: who is the greater fool: the fool, or the fool following him, voluntarily?

[Digital_Trucker]

That doesn't make it any better, or less unacceptable. that way, the basics of a political culture that are needed and essential to give democracy any chance to maike sense, get raped and abused. the result is the micky mouse party that the whole political and mudthrowing is.

That hardly can serve as an argument why this kind of democracy should serve as an example for the world to follow. It is a good argument why one should make sure to reject it.

Politicians that do not act and tell like they mean it, are not meaning what they say and what they do. Such persons do not deserve neither respect, nor trust. they are liars, and voting for them deserves laughs and ridicule: who is the greater fool: the fool, or the fool following him, voluntarily?

I never said it was acceptable, sir, I just said that's the way it is. I never argued that this kind of democracy (which really isn't what it is since the US is not a democracy) should serve as one for the world to follow. As for the fool thing, what choice is there when confronted between a choice between two liars?

[Rockin Robbins]

That hardly can serve as an argument why this kind of democracy should serve as an example for the world to follow. It is a good argument why one should make sure to reject it.

Politicians that do not act and tell like they mean it, are not meaning what they say and what they do. Such persons do not deserve neither respect, nor trust. they are liars, and voting for them deserves laughs and ridicule: who is the greater fool: the fool, or the fool following him, voluntarily?

Your first statement is false. Neither the United States nor Germany is a democracy. Democracy is two cats and a mouse voting over what's for dinner. We are in Republics, ruled by laws, not democracies ruled by the whims of men. The essence of a republic is protection of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Only in a republic could a Barack Obama ever be a candidate for president. In a democracy, he would be a slave. All the bull about democracy came up in the US around 1900 when the socialists wanted to push for a so-called progressive income tax. The constitution did not give them the right to make that change, so the idea that the US was a democracy was created, along with the fantasy that the constitution is a "living, breathing document" meaning nothing but what the majority choose for it to mean today.

The result is a country where well over 40% pay no federal income taxes at all, but who for some insane reason have the right to vote money out of the pockets of those who do. It is a grab-fest of non-productive people voting themselves money from the pockets of those who have worked hard to earn it. It is a country where a leading presidential candidate without laughing, proposes to fix the problems of wage earners by crippling the wage payers. It is a country willing to accept that the sole source of our energy, the corporations that generate it and distribute fuel to everyone, are evil and must have half of their profits (they have tinier profit margins that Wal-Mart!) confiscated. It has created a suicidal majority with no stake in the country they unwittingly seek to destroy. It is as if all the stockholders of Toyota attended a General Motors stockholders meeting and were permitted to vote, forcing GM to pay Toyota $200 million. We need to destroy the income tax system and substitute a national sales tax, the Fair Tax, to make all citizens contributers to the government they vote for. No representation without taxation!

In your second point you are spot on. Obama made a big pro woman show at Bethune Cookman College, where he made a huge "women should be paid as much as a man for the same work and government should REQUIRE it!!!" song and dance, while he pays his women $1,900 less for the same job as he pays his men in his personal campaign organization. McCain, who Obama portrayed as anti-woman, seeking to enslave them, is paying his women $9,100 more than the men in the same job description. Who really supports women? Your point is brilliant! Obama deserves neither respect nor trust. And that's only the beginning.

Obama does not have the confidence in his beliefs to tell the truth about them. Why?

[VipertheSniper]

It is a country willing to accept that the sole source of our energy, the corporations that generate it and distribute fuel to everyone, are evil and must have half of their profits (they have tinier profit margins that Wal-Mart!) confiscated. It has created a suicidal majority with no stake in the country they unwittingly seek to destroy.


Sorry for that quote mining, but I've found something, although I wouldn't know where to look for to verify it, that is really interesting. Especially the last part of the editorial.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg