So who do you pick?

[Gan]

Thats right... who's it gonna be in November?

I know the VP selections arent out yet, and that will alter some selections for some people. I just want to see where the PC stands at this point in time. We'll compare again after VP selections are made.

[Sean]

Obama but to be honest I wouldn't be that upset if McCain won.

[Gan]

I picked Obama for several reasons. Keep in mind nobody has my vote yet.

1. Represents change on the hill. I think we need change badly, and I'm afraid McCain will be too indebted to the old ways if he's to mount the type of campaign that will be necessary to go up against Obama.

2. On the premise that Obama does NOT choose Hillary as his VP.

3. Everytime I hear/see him speak - he's mesmerising. He demonstrates youthfulness, passion/desire for action, conviction, and integrity when he talks about the issues. Even though I dont agree with all of his ideas/programs, I'm greatly encouraged by his pay/go philosphy and the economic team he's surrounded himself with.

4. Gut feeling. There's no other way to describe it - I just get the feeling that having Obama as president is what America needs right now. No data points or tables to back that up... its just a gut feeling.

5. I still have some major reservations about McCain. Age, mental stamina, etc.

Lets see what choices are made for running mates and we'll pose this question again.

[ClydeR]

It's really not a good poll unless it includes Chuck Baldwin (http://baldwin2008.com), Bob Barr (http://www.bobbarr2008.com) and Ralph Nader (http://www.votenader.org/index.html).

[Gan]

It's really not a good poll unless it includes Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr and Ralph Nader.

Then we can look forward to you not posting here eh?

Oh wait...

:(

[Sean]

We should probably just concentrate on votes that count anyway.

[CrystalTears]

I'd like to see Obama get it, which is whom I chose. But I forsee McCain getting it.

I really do need to see more from both of them. And it does depend on who Obama takes as VP. People say that the VP doesn't matter, but in this election, I truly believe it does.

[Hulkein]

Obama but to be honest I wouldn't be that upset if McCain won.

Swap the names and that's how I feel. I'll probably vote for McCain but I do not dislike Obama. I hated Kerry and disliked Gore.

[Renian]

Obama FTW.

[ClydeR]

We should probably just concentrate on votes that count anyway.

That's what Al Gore said.

[Gan]

That's what Al Gore said.

Thats what Ross Perot wished.

[Deathravin]

I always laugh when people vote for presidential candidates by what they promise they're going to do... They would promise to give everybody a billion dollars each if they thought it would get them elected.

If they're a member of congress I try to look at their voting record. If they were a govenator of a state I try to see what they actually DID in their state. That's all that really matters to me. The rest is all bullshit.

You can tell me you're pro universal healthcare, but unless your voting record leans in that direction, you're just blowing tainted needles up my ass.

[Renian]

You can tell me you're pro universal healthcare, but unless your voting record leans in that direction, you're just blowing tainted needles up my ass.

...fucking ow.

[Tsa`ah]

I think the biggest mistake anyone can make at this point is to look back at the 2004 election to base their judgements on.

There is one big similarity ... people are very unhappy with the administration.

There are two big differences. We don't have an incumbent candidate and we don't have two "just fuck me in the ass already" candidates.

I'm going with Obama because I don't think the Cinderella factor is gone yet. Obama is my choice, but like many others ... there isn't a sense of dread at the prospect of McCain becoming president.

[Parkbandit]

Probably McCant... and while I will resent being forced to vote for the guy, I can't get past Obama's socialist agenda and his complete lack of judgment with the people he was close to. He's either full of shit, or THE worst judge of people ever.

[Tsa`ah]

I can't believe you were able to post that with a straight face.

[Insodus]

Ever been talked into buying something and then when you got home said, "WTF did I buy this for?"

Thats how the people who vote for Obama are going to feel if he gets elected.

[crb]

I want McCain, and think he will win.

If you'd have asked me 1 year ago which Dem I liked most I would have said Obama, but since then he has just turned me off, and it isn't about things like bittergate, but moreso it seems to me he moved further and further left as the primary went on. Like all his Nafta talk. Also, the president appoints thousands of people, we know three of Obama's pals (Wright, Rezco, Ayers), how many similar people are back there waiting to be appointed to things like ambassadorships?

I also take exception to voting for someone because he is a good speaker. We're not picking a mascot or an American idol winner.

I think the country desparately needs a moderate who can work across the isle and bring compromise after 8 years of bitter partisanship. John McCain is that man. Obama says he wants to, but he has nothing in his record to indicate that he will be. McCain has worked across the isle countless times (much to the chagrin of the far right). In fact, that alone should be enough for people to settle the election.

McCain is disdained and even hated by the far right, many of them actively worked to stop his ascension. That should tell you he is a moderate.

In contrast, Hillary got the working class middle of the party, and every far left liberal group (MoveOn.org etc) endorsed and supported Obama. If Obama were the moderate bring-em-together guy he claims to be, he wouldn't have such supporters.

There are also key issues.

1. The Supreme court, I could care less about abortion, I'm pro choice, and I wish the issue would just go away. But I do care about activist judges and bullshit like Kelo vs. New London (google it). Obama would appoint more judges that'd take away your personal property rights in favor of big government. McCain wouldn't.

2. Iraq. Obama is dumb for not acknowledging the progress. It was a mistake to go in, but it'd be a bigger mistake to leave early. An unstable Iraq could make the entire region unstable, and what would that do to the world? Israel has nukes, Iran wants them, and we have a global economy. If an Iraq war destablized the middle east we'd get $300 a barrel oil, $15 a gallon gas, a global depression, and 20%+ unemployment. Sure... we can't be certain that would happen. But it is the job of the president to make absolutely certain that it never does. Leaving early is too great a risk.

3. Capital gains tax (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120735854234491599.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r1:c0.0832769)Obama is an idiot. Free trade (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120424592454501493.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries). Obama is an idiot. Plus I'd rather not pay higher income tax as well thanks to the Democrats firstly labeling the modestly wealthy as rich, and then lying to the public (http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/04/the_rich_and_their_taxes.html) that the tax cuts are for the rich only.

4. Healthcare. Universal healthcare scares me to death, because if I got sick it could end up killing me. I don't want Canadacare where I have to join a waiting list (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400EFDE113AF935A25752C0A9669C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2)when I get cancer, drastically reducing my survival chances. Nor do I want Britaincare where, if I ever needed dialysis, I might not be permitted because I'm too old (at the time) or whatever, so my only recourse being to move to another (freer) country and pay, or go casket shopping.

5. I truly worry about what having a democratic sweep would do to the country. We'd get horrible laws like the law that takes away worker's rights to secret ballots in union votes. I think the government works best with opposite parties controlling the two branches of government (heh, late 90s were great).


Now the reason he'll win is simple electoral math. Obama doesn't play well in swing states, and if he can't win those, he can't win. McCain actually has a pretty easy path. Also, Obama has crested early, he has been declining lately, Hillary had all the momentum at the end.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/mccains_electoral_college_math.html

Hillary slaughtered Obama in almost all battleground states. He won states that either are solidly blue or red, not purple. He just doesn't do well with those demographics. So, despite the Republican brand being so weak, McCain actually has a very good chance.

[Parkbandit]

I always laugh when people vote for presidential candidates by what they promise they're going to do... They would promise to give everybody a billion dollars each if they thought it would get them elected.

If they're a member of congress I try to look at their voting record. If they were a govenator of a state I try to see what they actually DID in their state. That's all that really matters to me. The rest is all bullshit.

You can tell me you're pro universal healthcare, but unless your voting record leans in that direction, you're just blowing tainted needles up my ass.


The opposite is equally stupid.. voting for a candidate because you like the way they look, or speak... and justifying the vote by telling yourself that the things they put on their platform won't pass Congress anyway, so it's no big deal.

[Parkbandit]

I can't believe you were able to post that with a straight face.


Which part did you have trouble understanding? Maybe I could dumb it down for you or at the very least, give you key words to google.

[AestheticDeath]

Ever been talked into buying something and then when you got home said, "WTF did I buy this for?"

Thats how the people who vote for Obama are going to feel if he gets elected.
That's what I am afraid of. I'm not going to vote for Obama just because he is a good public speaker.

I don't like all the crap I heard about Obamas preacher guy. I think he only finally wormed away from him because it was hurting his campaign. Not to sure he doesn't share the opinions.

Actions kinda speak louder than words sometimes, and since I have not really kept up to date on everything to do with the elections, well thats something I saw.

All you guys with a good idea of your choice, need to tell us why too.

[Mabus]

All you guys with a good idea of your choice, need to tell us why too.
Economy:
1) Lower taxation of the middle class, and elimination of the AMT.
2) Ethanol subsidies and sugar quotas drive up food prices. They need to be ended.
3) Business equipment deductions should be raised, and allowed immediately.
4) Permanent ban on internet taxation.
Iraq:
1) Victory and Stability, not defeat, surrender and retreat.
Experience:
1) Honorable military career, both during and after combat.
2) Decades of legislative experience.
3) Proven ability to work across the aisle, instead of just promises to do so.

Those are a few I can name off the top of my head.

[Renian]

I don't like all the crap I heard about Obamas preacher guy. I think he only finally wormed away from him because it was hurting his campaign.


Well, yeah, that is why he "wormed away", so to speak. But the reason he was reluctant to do so was because it was his pastor of 20 years, and the guy who did his marriage.

While I don't necessarily think that Obama is agreeing with Wright secretly at all,

Not to sure he doesn't share the opinions.

is still a valid point.


Probably McCant... and while I will resent being forced to vote for the guy, I can't get past Obama's socialist agenda and his complete lack of judgment with the people he was close to. He's either full of shit, or THE worst judge of people ever.

Or Wright changed.

Also, PB, is there something similar to this (http://www.therealmccain.com) for Obama that you could link me to? Those clips are a big part of why I don't want to vote for McCain; he's not sure on his own issues.

[Apathy]

I think McCain 2000 will be the biggest obstacle for McCain 2008, and Obama will eek out a close win by changing a few historically red states blue.

[Parkbandit]

Well, yeah, that is why he "wormed away", so to speak. But the reason he was reluctant to do so was because it was his pastor of 20 years, and the guy who did his marriage.

While I don't necessarily think that Obama is agreeing with Wright secretly at all,

is still a valid point.

Or Wright changed.

Obama uses the same line when asked about his relationships with questionable people. "That's not the <<insert questionable person name here>> that I have known over the past 20 years...



Also, PB, is there something similar to this (http://www.therealmccain.com) for Obama that you could link me to? Those clips are a big part of why I don't want to vote for McCain; he's not sure on his own issues.

I wouldn't use questionable sources like liberal or conservative blogging sites to help me determine which candidate I should vote for.

[Renian]

I wouldn't use questionable sources like liberal or conservative blogging sites to help me determine which candidate I should vote for.

Probably a good thing in general, but this site has pics/vids of McCain contradicting himself constantly within short periods of time on his issues. And you know what they say; pics or it didn't happen.

But at any rate, it makes me go, "What the hell are McCain's stances if he's flopping back and forth like this?"

At least with Obama, I know what I'm getting. (I hope...FOR AMERICA)

[Insodus]

He was a member of the congregation 20 years, got married there, gave lots of his own money to Wright, diverted finances of his STATE to Wright.

Now you want to tell me he doesn't share the views of Wright?

Pfft, if you believe he doesn't you are blind or stupid, or both.

[Ilvane]

Hey Gan, can you at least add Nader and Barr?

I mean, they are running.

Angela*

[Renian]

He was a member of the congregation 20 years, got married there, gave lots of his own money to Wright, diverted finances of his STATE to Wright.

Now you want to tell me he doesn't share the views of Wright?

Pfft, if you believe he doesn't you are blind or stupid, or both.

I'm aware of all of this. But that doesn't mean people don't change.

Is he going to have some of Wright's views? Possibly. But what about McCain's crazy pastor?

[landy]

Obama uses the same line when asked about his relationships with questionable people. "That's not the <<insert questionable person name here>> that I have known over the past 20 years...



I wouldn't use questionable sources like liberal or conservative blogging sites to help me determine which candidate I should vote for.

Sorry PB, gotta call bullshit on this "people he surrounds himself with" argument against Obama. McCain's wife has been adulterous and addicted to drugs in the not so distant past, and he married the bitch. So don't make it like McCain doesn't have crazy people on his side, and that's not even mentioning the two crazy as fuck evangalists he had pulling for him, and whose support he embraced.

[Sean of the Thread]

Thats right... who's it gonna be in November?

I know the VP selections arent out yet, and that will alter some selections for some people. I just want to see where the PC stands at this point in time. We'll compare again after VP selections are made.


Hey Gan, can you at least add Nader and Barr?

I mean, they are running.

Angela*

Learn 2 read.

[Keller]

1) McCain is going to remove the AMT. Good thing. But then he's going to implement his own "alternative" regime. FUCKING RETARDED. He's using tax policy as a political tool instead of a governing asset. Politicians shouldn't be fucking with the tax code. Maybe allow elected officials to delegate those responsibilities to economists and tax professionals. But, to be sure, McCain is clueless.

2) I'd love to have a thread about the relative merit of the capital gains rate, why it's lower than the income tax rate, and what could be done to fix it. But one thing is sure: just posting a WSJ editorial as some sort of "cite" on the merit of the Bush tax cut CG rate is the equivalent of me citing George Soros' opinion on the Iraq war.

[Back]

Obama over McCain’t.

Seriously.

[Sean of the Thread]

Official odds current as of this 12:17 am June 6th. Obama is quite the favorite thus far at -140 to McCain's even money.


Odds
Odds On: Who will be named as the Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee for the 2008 Presidential Election?

Barack Obama's camp must officially announce thatone of the listed competitors has been chosen for wagers to have action. Any wagers placed after the outcome is public knowledge will be graded as No Action. Singles Only. Max. $50.

Hillary Clinton
7/4

Jim Webb
9/4

John Edwards
6/1

Bill Richardson
8/1

Kathleen Sebelius
15/1

Wesley Clark
15/1

Ted Strickland
20/1

Al Gore
22/1

Joseph Biden
22/1

Michael Bloomberg
30/1

Janet Napolitano
30/1

Evan Bayh
35/1

Odds On: Who will be named as the Republican Vice Presidential Nominee for the 2008 Presidential Election?

John McCain's camp must officially announce that one of the listed competitors has been chosen for wagers to have action. Any wagers placed after the outcome is public knowledge will be graded as No Action. Singles Only. Max. $50.

Bobby Jindal
7/1

Tim Pawlenty
8/1

Lindsey Graham
11/1

Tom Ridge
17/2

Mitt Romney
7/2

Mike Huckabee
9/2

Joseph Lieberman
12/1

Chris Cox
15/1

Condoleezza Rice
15/1

David Petraeus
20/1

Michael Bloomberg
25/1

Rudy Giuliani
20/1

Jeb Bush
35/1

Ron Paul
35/1

Fred Thompson
40/1

Bet On: Who will be the next president of the United States?

Vote on who will win the 2008 Presidential election. Any wagers placed after outcome becomes public knowledge will be no action. Singles Only. Max. $50.

John McCain
EVEN

Barack Obama
-140

[Parkbandit]

Sorry PB, gotta call bullshit on this "people he surrounds himself with" argument against Obama. McCain's wife has been adulterous and addicted to drugs in the not so distant past, and he married the bitch. So don't make it like McCain doesn't have crazy people on his side, and that's not even mentioning the two crazy as fuck evangalists he had pulling for him, and whose support he embraced.

Call bullshit on it all you want... doesn't mean what I said about Obama is less true.

I'm a fan of neither man..

[Parkbandit]

I'm aware of all of this. But that doesn't mean people don't change.

Is he going to have some of Wright's views? Possibly. But what about McCain's crazy pastor?


You've been reading those liberal rags again Renian. That "crazy" pastor you are talking about wasn't McCain's pastor.. just some nutjob that supports McCain. If you are going to use him as an example, you would also have to use Obama getting support from Hamas' North American Spokesperson.

[g++]

Ripping off the onion here but ....

Alan Chambers,
Welder
"I'd gladly vote for Mr. Barr if I didn't consider the voter registration process such a flagrant affront of my personal liberties."

[Gan]

I want McCain, and think he will win.

If you'd have asked me 1 year ago which Dem I liked most I would have said Obama, but since then he has just turned me off, and it isn't about things like bittergate, but moreso it seems to me he moved further and further left as the primary went on. Like all his Nafta talk. Also, the president appoints thousands of people, we know three of Obama's pals (Wright, Rezco, Ayers), how many similar people are back there waiting to be appointed to things like ambassadorships?

I also take exception to voting for someone because he is a good speaker. We're not picking a mascot or an American idol winner.

I think the country desparately needs a moderate who can work across the isle and bring compromise after 8 years of bitter partisanship. John McCain is that man. Obama says he wants to, but he has nothing in his record to indicate that he will be. McCain has worked across the isle countless times (much to the chagrin of the far right). In fact, that alone should be enough for people to settle the election.

McCain is disdained and even hated by the far right, many of them actively worked to stop his ascension. That should tell you he is a moderate.

In contrast, Hillary got the working class middle of the party, and every far left liberal group (MoveOn.org etc) endorsed and supported Obama. If Obama were the moderate bring-em-together guy he claims to be, he wouldn't have such supporters.

There are also key issues.

1. The Supreme court, I could care less about abortion, I'm pro choice, and I wish the issue would just go away. But I do care about activist judges and bullshit like Kelo vs. New London (google it). Obama would appoint more judges that'd take away your personal property rights in favor of big government. McCain wouldn't.

2. Iraq. Obama is dumb for not acknowledging the progress. It was a mistake to go in, but it'd be a bigger mistake to leave early. An unstable Iraq could make the entire region unstable, and what would that do to the world? Israel has nukes, Iran wants them, and we have a global economy. If an Iraq war destablized the middle east we'd get $300 a barrel oil, $15 a gallon gas, a global depression, and 20%+ unemployment. Sure... we can't be certain that would happen. But it is the job of the president to make absolutely certain that it never does. Leaving early is too great a risk.

3. Capital gains tax (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120735854234491599.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r1:c0.0832769)Obama is an idiot. Free trade (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120424592454501493.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries). Obama is an idiot. Plus I'd rather not pay higher income tax as well thanks to the Democrats firstly labeling the modestly wealthy as rich, and then lying to the public (http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/04/the_rich_and_their_taxes.html) that the tax cuts are for the rich only.

4. Healthcare. Universal healthcare scares me to death, because if I got sick it could end up killing me. I don't want Canadacare where I have to join a waiting list (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400EFDE113AF935A25752C0A9669C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2)when I get cancer, drastically reducing my survival chances. Nor do I want Britaincare where, if I ever needed dialysis, I might not be permitted because I'm too old (at the time) or whatever, so my only recourse being to move to another (freer) country and pay, or go casket shopping.

5. I truly worry about what having a democratic sweep would do to the country. We'd get horrible laws like the law that takes away worker's rights to secret ballots in union votes. I think the government works best with opposite parties controlling the two branches of government (heh, late 90s were great).


Now the reason he'll win is simple electoral math. Obama doesn't play well in swing states, and if he can't win those, he can't win. McCain actually has a pretty easy path. Also, Obama has crested early, he has been declining lately, Hillary had all the momentum at the end.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/mccains_electoral_college_math.html

Hillary slaughtered Obama in almost all battleground states. He won states that either are solidly blue or red, not purple. He just doesn't do well with those demographics. So, despite the Republican brand being so weak, McCain actually has a very good chance.
Excellent post. Thank you for putting it up.


Hey Gan, can you at least add Nader and Barr?

I mean, they are running.

Angela*
...

[Kembal]

It'll be Obama.

60% of the country wants to get out of Iraq in less than 2 years. Hard to argue that McCain will take any significant portion of that vote.

And while you guys argue that it's B.S. to vote for someone because they are a good speaker, it's really not. A large part of the power of the presidency is the "power of the pulpit", and having that ability to get the country to go along with your ideas is vital in presuading Congress to vote for them. If you want an example, just look at Reagan.

Bush, on the other hand, has almost zero domestic policy accomplishments that came from his own initiative/proposals, outside of Medicare Part D. Certainly his credit ran out by late 2006, but he still didn't get anything done. I'll posit his limited abilities as a speaker is a large contributing factor to that. (I put domestic policy accomplishments on there because a large part of foriegn policy is out of Congress' hands to dictate, and thus the power of the pulpit isn't as vital to the conduct of foriegn policy.)

[CrystalTears]

And while you guys argue that it's B.S. to vote for someone because they are a good speaker, it's really not. A large part of the power of the presidency is the "power of the pulpit", and having that ability to get the country to go along with your ideas is vital in presuading Congress to vote for them. If you want an example, just look at Reagan.Agreed.

[Mabus]

And while you guys argue that it's B.S. to vote for someone because they are a good speaker, it's really not.
TheDNCChosenOne is not a good "speaker" he is really good at reading speeches and reciting prewritten material.

Watch interviews with him. He more disfluency then almost any major public speaker I have ever heard. If you consider "uh" and "um" as good speech, he is king.

[g++]

It'll be Obama.

60% of the country wants to get out of Iraq in less than 2 years. Hard to argue that McCain will take any significant portion of that vote.


The problem with those polls is they always phrase it as "How much longer should we be in Iraq" and of course everyone like a year. Then they are like when should we leave and 60% are like when the jobs done. 60% of the country contradicts the shit out of itself. The polls are skewed by the fact that they never mention the obvious consequences of just jumping on a helicopter and leaving Iraq to go up in flames. I would of course love for our troops to be home next week but the fact is that would be devastating to our countries reputation and regional stability in the middle east, not to mention just down right irresponsible on a world scale.

[TheEschaton]

"He more disfluency"?

[Tsa`ah]

Which part did you have trouble understanding? Maybe I could dumb it down for you or at the very least, give you key words to google.

Oh I understood it just fine ... I just don't think you were able to grasp not only your own post, but my response.

Let's revisit that little nugget of ignorance.


Probably McCant... and while I will resent being forced to vote for the guy, I can't get past Obama's socialist agenda and his complete lack of judgment with the people he was close to. He's either full of shit, or THE worst judge of people ever.

You're not really forced to vote for either, but we'll skip past that and the "socialist agenda" bit.

It's just absurd that you fire away at Obama's "personal associations" yet ignore those that McCain sought .... and those he has protected.

Couple that with your predictable "google" response and it comes out as laughable ... thus my straight face disbelief.

[Tsa`ah]

"He more disfluency"?

It's the sudden drop in BP due to the instant boner he receives with the prospect of posting about Obama.

[Keller]

TheDNCChosenOne is not a good "speaker" he is really good at reading speeches and reciting prewritten material.

Watch interviews with him. He more disfluency then almost any major public speaker I have ever heard. If you consider "uh" and "um" as good speech, he is king.

I believe you believe that. Obamaniac.

[Mabus]

I believe you believe that. Obamaniac.
I edited out much of my post, previous to posting, to just be factual without being overly antagonistic. I can see that a mistake in my editing mistake (made in an attempt to be less confrontational) will now be the topic for the rabid Obamaniacs, rather then the fact that your chosen one does use "uh" and "um" consistently in interviews.

One of the first things you are taught in speech is to remove disfluency. To be a "great speaker" one would not use disfluency, but would instead speak correctly without the disfluency or any pauses, or (second best option) pause without sound and then continue. He does neither.

[Parkbandit]

Oh I understood it just fine ... I just don't think you were able to grasp not only your own post, but my response.

Let's revisit that little nugget of ignorance.



You're not really forced to vote for either, but we'll skip past that and the "socialist agenda" bit.

It's just absurd that you fire away at Obama's "personal associations" yet ignore those that McCain sought .... and those he has protected.

Couple that with your predictable "google" response and it comes out as laughable ... thus my straight face disbelief.


I had a firm grasp of your response.. it was a 3rd grade response to a post. Doesn't take anything more than a half retarded 10 year old to fully understand most of your responses.

But feel free to expound on McCain's associations and how he has protected them. Make sure you note their terrorist activities, racially divisive rhetoric, multiple convictions, etc...

Your post is not only predictable, but it's not even laughable. It's sad that this was the best response you have.

[Parkbandit]

It's the sudden drop in BP due to the instant boner he receives with the prospect of posting about Obama.


You really seem to have a thing for the male groin area. It's a common theme to most of your weak ass retorts.

OMG HE R GOT A BONER!

[Tsa`ah]

I edited out much of my post, previous to posting, to just be factual without being overly antagonistic. I can see that a mistake in my editing mistake (made in an attempt to be less confrontational) will now be the topic for the rabid Obamaniacs, rather then the fact that your chosen one does use "uh" and "um" consistently in interviews.

One of the first things you are taught in speech is to remove disfluency. To be a "great speaker" one would not use disfluency, but would instead speak correctly without the disfluency or any pauses, or (second best option) pause without sound and then continue. He does neither.

This isn't a classroom and I'm sure Obama, nor those who choose to support him, really care about the technicalities you wish to impose on an overall view of his oratory skills.


I had a firm grasp of your response.. it was a 3rd grade response to a post. Doesn't take anything more than a half retarded 10 year old to fully understand most of your responses.

Yet you struggle day in and day out ... and following excerpts of your post demonstrate exactly that.


But feel free to expound on McCain's associations and how he has protected them. Make sure you note their terrorist activities, racially divisive rhetoric, multiple convictions, etc...

You're pulling a Mabus ... or perhaps a Mabus is pulling a PB .... irrelevant really. That's all you have and you try the "src plz" bullshit as always ... because you're incapable of arriving at an original thought on your own.


Your post is not only predictable, but it's not even laughable. It's sad that this was the best response you have.

And we conclude with classic PB. Just regurgitate the post you're responding to. We've already had the google, now we have the inability to produce an original thought ... let's have the over used big ass .jpg.

[Mabus]

This isn't a classroom and I'm sure Obama, nor those who choose to support him, really care about the technicalities you wish to impose on an overall view of his oratory skills.

My post was in response to a claim that TheDNCChosenOne was a great speaker. Watch his interviews, and then come back and tell us he does not exhibit the behavior.

[CrystalTears]

After 8 years of Yogi Bush, all the candidates are excellent speakers by comparison.

I've seen some of his interviews and I don't see it as much of a problem as you seem to. He may say it when collecting his thoughts when presented with a question, but then, so does everyone else.

[Tsa`ah]

Lol ....

I've seen his speeches, I've seen his debates, and I've seen his interviews.

He is a great speaker, much in the same way Reagan, Kennedy, and I dare say what we know, historically, of Lincoln.

He struggles on the curve ball and the slider ... big whoop. By your "classroom" standards we shouldn't associate a slew of authors and artists with being "great" because they didn't follow the rules of composition or went outside of the lines.

I'm sure if he wants a grade, he'll go back to one or more of the educators in his past and ask for it. In the end it's a pretty ridiculous critique.

[CrystalTears]

I would much rather that you have a critique of his actual issues, Mabus. Not who he knows, what church he goes to, his sentence structure, the way he holds his hands, what he pours in his coffee... they are all unimportant and irrelevant.

If this is all you have, you just convince me more and more that he's the candidate for me.

[AnticorRifling]

I'll vote for McCain. I just hope he as a strong VP so when he snuffs it in office we've got a good replacement.

[Clove]

... rather then the fact that your chosen one does use "uh" and "um" consistently in interviews.Wait, Keller isn't in the DNC. So which is it? Did the DNC choose him or did the voters choose him? Believe me, we're all aware that YOU didn't choose him, but you only come off as sounding retarded by refusing to use Obama's name.

Just about everyone has verbal affectations when speaking on the fly. Reagan and Bubba did too. That really isn't what (dispassioned) people consider when evaluating a good speaker; his vocabulary, ease of delivery and ability to clearly express himself are factors, however.

This is just more of your ridiculous criticisms. It's a fairly universal opinion that Obama is an excellent speaker, but as usual Mabus knows better. Really there are plenty of valid criticisms to raise, but you've spent so much effort to "frame" a "guilty man" that nobody really gives your opinions much consideration. Prejudicial arguments, FTW!

*Hint: If you're going to criticize someone else's literacy, you'd better make sure your post is grammatically perfect. Otherwise the irony makes you look retarded... but you're used that, right?

[Parkbandit]

You're pulling a Mabus ... or perhaps a Mabus is pulling a PB .... irrelevant really. That's all you have and you try the "src plz" bullshit as always ... because you're incapable of arriving at an original thought on your own.



And we conclude with classic PB. Just regurgitate the post you're responding to. We've already had the google, now we have the inability to produce an original thought ... let's have the over used big ass .jpg.

You have literally lost it. Reread the thread. You had a problem with what I said about Obama.. and your big response was "OMG, WHAT ABOUT MCCAIN THOUGH!!!" If you want to demonstrate McCain's problematic friendships, here's an idea dipshit.. POST THE PROBLEMS! It's not my job to post for you... just because you ask "Well, what about McCain's associations.. well!?" doesn't mean it's necessarily my job to do your digging for you. You are the googlexpert here chump.. if you want to make a point about McCain's associations.. then post them. Otherwise, you are just pulling a typical Tsa'ah and typing out words without really having a fucking point.

So here's your chance bright boy.. take the time to actually post some of your own thoughts down about McCain's problematic associations. Here is your chance to bore people with a 16,000 word essay, with links and charts.. showing all of McCain's associate troubles.

We're all on the edge of our seats in anticipation.

[Gan]

I'll vote for McCain. I just hope he as a strong VP so when he snuffs it in office we've got a good replacement.

Romney

[Tsa`ah]

You have literally lost it. Reread the thread. You had a problem with what I said about Obama.. and your big response was "OMG, WHAT ABOUT MCCAIN THOUGH!!!" If you want to demonstrate McCain's problematic friendships, here's an idea dipshit.. POST THE PROBLEMS! It's not my job to post for you... just because you ask "Well, what about McCain's associations.. well!?" doesn't mean it's necessarily my job to do your digging for you. You are the googlexpert here chump.. if you want to make a point about McCain's associations.. then post them. Otherwise, you are just pulling a typical Tsa'ah and typing out words without really having a fucking point.

So here's your chance bright boy.. take the time to actually post some of your own thoughts down about McCain's problematic associations. Here is your chance to bore people with a 16,000 word essay, with links and charts.. showing all of McCain's associate troubles.

We're all on the edge of our seats in anticipation.

Dear god ... I didn't think you could stoop into further ignorance.

[CrystalTears]

Yeah. I've been seeing Romney around McCain quite a bit these last few days. Speaking about him, supporting him (even though he said McCain doesn't have a firm grasp of economics but omg now he does).

It wouldn't surprise me, nor does it bother me.

[Parkbandit]

Dear god ... I didn't think you could stoop into further ignorance.


Congratulations. Well done.

A recap of Tsa'ah's responses for those who can't keep up with his stupidity:

Me: Obama has judgement issues with his associates.

Tsa'ah: U R DUM, WHUT ABOUT MCCAIN'S FRIENDS!

Me: Post the problems Tsa'ah.

Tsa'ah: U R IGNORANT


Congratulations Tsa'ah. While I think we've finally cured you of having to overcompensate your lack of real intelligence with giant walls of text.. I'm afraid we may have actually helped to much.. if this is what you are reduced to.

[Tsa`ah]

So now you have to reach into my back pocket for a response?

You went on a tear about Obama's associations as if McCain were some squeaky clean babe out of the bath ... it's an ignorant position.

[Lucas]

Presidents really don't do anything too important. This especially goes for the American political system. I really don't believe there will be any difference in general policy between Obama and McCain.

[Stanley Burrell]

I was glad to move into constant hurricane weather. In no way do I project.

So let me get this right, Mike. I'm'a go out on a limb here:

You may or may not have disagreements with liberal agendas.

[Tsa`ah]

...

Your response doesn't count due to the fact that you performed an edit ... and are likely doing so from work.

[Parkbandit]

So now you have to reach into my back pocket for a response?

You went on a tear about Obama's associations as if McCain were some squeaky clean babe out of the bath ... it's an ignorant position.


Sweet fucking Jesus Christ.. here.. I'm going to make this pretty easy.. for someone with an obvious reading disability.

YOU have a problem with McCain's associations. YOU are the one that brought that up. IT IS YOUR JOB TO ACTUALLY POST THE PROBLEMS, NOT MINE.

God, you are a fucking retard.

[crb]

I'm aware of all of this. But that doesn't mean people don't change.

Is he going to have some of Wright's views? Possibly. But what about McCain's crazy pastor?
McCain doesn't have a crazy pastor.

A crazy pastor endorsed McCain, McCain has never been a member of his congregation, never gave money to his church, and only met him like once. Big ocean sized difference.

[Tsa`ah]

Sweet fucking Jesus Christ.. here.. I'm going to make this pretty easy.. for someone with an obvious reading disability.

YOU have a problem with McCain's associations. YOU are the one that brought that up. IT IS YOUR JOB TO ACTUALLY POST THE PROBLEMS, NOT MINE.

God, you are a fucking retard.

Umm ... sparky.

I don't have a problem with McCain's associations. I have a problem with the associations he sought out while bringing Obama's into question ... I don't have a problem with McCain's association in the least. Much in the same way I don't have a problem with Obama's.

I simply brought the absurdity of your statement into context. You seem to have a problem with Obama's association yet give McCain a pass ... for obvious reasons.

Thanks for continuing to demonstrate my assertions about you.

[crb]

Sorry PB, gotta call bullshit on this "people he surrounds himself with" argument against Obama. McCain's wife has been adulterous and addicted to drugs in the not so distant past, and he married the bitch. So don't make it like McCain doesn't have crazy people on his side, and that's not even mentioning the two crazy as fuck evangalists he had pulling for him, and whose support he embraced.
I find it hilarious how hypocritical liberals will rail against prison time for drug addicts and insist time and again that addicts are victims who need help, and then use a perscription painkiller problem, which is extremely common and happens to many people who get injured and get put on painkillers, as a way to denigrate sometone. Fucking hypocrite.

As for adultery, umm, Bill Clinton anyone?

The fact is everyone has vices, and having a vice isn't the same thing as preaching the the white man invented the aids virus to kill black people. Stop trying to equivocate it, even Obama isn't trying to equivocate it. If you support Obama you should follow his lead.

[Stanley Burrell]

The Gemstone IV Players' Corner > Socializing > Politics > So who do you pick?

Pikachu.

[crb]

Presidents really don't do anything too important. This especially goes for the American political system. I really don't believe there will be any difference in general policy between Obama and McCain.
You're wrong.

1. Presidents pick federal judges, including supreme court judges. They need to be confirmed by the senate, but the senate doesn't pick them.

2. The president commands the armed forces. He doesn't need congress for most of that.

3. The president sets the budget, but congress can deal on that.

4. The president usually doesn't draft new legislation, but he can veto (almost) any new legislation that is brought before him.

So really, there are major differences. McCain will not order troops out of Iraq until it is stable, Obama will. McCain will appoint conservative (meaning following the law, instead of changing the law) judges, Obama won't. Finally, Obama will be a rubber stamp of Pelosi & Reid on any legislation they want. McCain won't.

[Mabus]

Did the DNC choose him or did the voters choose him?
That is an easy one.

Since he got less popular votes then his opponent, and did not have the pledged delegates to win, the DNC RBC and the super delegates (party elites) chose him.

Hope that has been helpful.

Believe me, we're all aware that YOU didn't choose him, but you only come off as sounding retarded by refusing to use Obama's name.
And here I was being accommodating...

After the whiny little bitches here started complaining that my posts all contained his name (which they didn't) I decided to not use it, for their sake and the sake of being able to hold a conversation without personal vendettas and attacks on the forums.

I responded truthfully with my opinion on speaking skills. Being able to read a speech, or use prepared text, is not the only mark of a "great speaker".


Just about everyone has verbal affectations when speaking on the fly.
Not great speakers.

That you would attack me because I have posted the truth about his disfluency is rather ironic, in light of:

Otherwise the irony makes you look retarded...
Yes, it does make you look that way.

[CrystalTears]

Since he got less popular votes then his opponent, and did not have the pledged delegates to win, the DNC RBC and the super delegates (party elites) chose him.
You keep stating this, and I'd like to know why (mostly regarding the delegates portion).

[Stanley Burrell]

The fact is everyone has vices, and having a vice isn't the same thing as preaching the the white man invented the aids virus to kill black people.

As a self-touted liberal, AIDS being invented to kill Darky was the first thing I had to check "yes" next to on my terrorist sign-up list.

[RichardCranium]

...I don't have a problem with McCain's associations. I have a problem with the associations he sought out while bringing Obama's into question ... I don't have a problem with McCain's association in the least. Much in the same way I don't have a problem with Obama's...

I think PB would like to know what associations McCain sought out. You keep being very vague and calling him a retard for not knowing what you're talking about.

[Tsa`ah]

I think PB would like to know what associations McCain sought out. You keep being very vague and calling him a retard for not knowing what you're talking about.

Lol .... are you serious?

Did he not meet with evangelicals for their endorsements? Some of the very same people he referred to as "agents of intolerance"?

Beyond that ... don't fall into the PB trap. He loves to pull the "src plz".

[Clove]

Your response doesn't count due to the fact that you performed an edit ... and are likely doing so from work.I edit all my posts that reply to Mabus.

[Parkbandit]

I think PB would like to know what associations McCain sought out. You keep being very vague and calling him a retard for not knowing what you're talking about.


It's pretty easy for most people to understand. Tsa'ah is intellectually bankrupt.. it's all he has left.

[Clove]

Not great speakers.Winston Churchill stuttered. It took nothing away from the content of his speech.

[Keller]

I edited out much of my post, previous to posting, to just be factual without being overly antagonistic. I can see that a mistake in my editing mistake (made in an attempt to be less confrontational) will now be the topic for the rabid Obamaniacs, rather then the fact that your chosen one does use "uh" and "um" consistently in interviews.

One of the first things you are taught in speech is to remove disfluency. To be a "great speaker" one would not use disfluency, but would instead speak correctly without the disfluency or any pauses, or (second best option) pause without sound and then continue. He does neither.

My chosen one? Do you know who I am voting for? Or do you just know I think you're an Obamaniac and therefore think I am defending Obama?

[Keller]

After 8 years of Yogi Bush, all the candidates are excellent speakers by comparison.

I've seen some of his interviews and I don't see it as much of a problem as you seem to. He may say it when collecting his thoughts when presented with a question, but then, so does everyone else.

Especially politicians. When not speaking to oneself, politicians have got to be self-edited or face the consequences of any eisogetic criticism of a mispoken or miscontrued phrase.

[Keller]

you only come off as sounding retarded by refusing to use Obama's name.


I forget who did it -- but about a week ago someone posted that some percentage (I believe well over half, but I'm not going to state that for fear that Mabus will call up FoxNews, explain I am an expletive liar, demand an apology, and call me morally bankrupt) of his posts contained the word Obama. Since then he's avoided using his name directly.

[Clove]

Since then he's avoided using his name directly.I know he's very clever.

[Keller]

conservative (meaning following the law, instead of changing the law) judges.

Can you elaborate please? Try to be specific.

[CrystalTears]

I forget who did it -- but about a week ago someone posted that some percentage (I believe well over half, but I'm not going to state that for fear that Mabus will call up FoxNews, explain I am an expletive liar, demand an apology, and call me morally bankrupt) of his posts contained the word Obama. Since then he's avoided using his name directly.


Fun Mabus fact: 163 of his 398 posts contain the word Obama

Totally pointless, but I was curious.

That said, not stating his name doesn't change the fact that Mabus only likes to criticize and mock Obama.

[Mabus]

That said, not stating his name doesn't change the fact that Mabus only likes to criticize and mock Obama.
I do criticise someone I firmly believe is bad for this country, I agree. Your candidate would be a damn poor choice to be president.

The main ingredient of a good president (in my opinion) is sound judgement.

He has shown an amazing lack of judgement for 20 years in his associations with racists, anti-Semites, domestic terrorists and criminals.

That you disagree that associating with these people for 20 years is poor judgement does not change the fact that it is poor judgement, or that these were the people that shaped his life views, mentored him spiritually and politically, and even helped him buy his house.

Now his tune changes, as he panders for votes. But his past still sings loudly enough for anyone not deaf to reason.

[Stanley Burrell]

Winston Churchill stuttered. It took nothing away from the content of his speech.

Says you.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51FQncWGceL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

[Tsa`ah]

I do criticise someone I firmly believe is bad for this country, I agree. Your candidate would be a damn poor choice to be president.

The main ingredient of a good president (in my opinion) is sound judgement.

He has shown an amazing lack of judgement for 20 years in his associations with racists, anti-Semites, domestic terrorists and criminals.

That you disagree that associating with these people for 20 years is poor judgement does not change the fact that it is poor judgement, or that these were the people that shaped his life views, mentored him spiritually and politically, and even helped him buy his house.

Now his tune changes, as he panders for votes. But his past still sings loudly enough for anyone not deaf to reason.

Our founding fathers would have been considered domestic terrorists by today's standards. Shay's rebellion. Specific acts committed by groups and individuals leading up to the civil war.

I don't agree with the tactics employed by TWU during the Viet Nam war, but I would be hard pressed to call these acts of terrorism when put into historic context.

The time has come and gone for the argument that Wright is a racist or an anti-semite. It seems the only people who haven't let this weak argument go are those so far to the right that are associated with those that plant bombs in planned parenthood buildings.

Poor judgement didn't take a young man from an impoverished background through college and an Ivy League law school, a short stint as an educator ... to and through a state senate seat .... all the way through one of the hardest fought primaries to become a historic presidential candidate.

You could use that argument for Bush, but even I would admit that it would be a very weak argument.

[CrystalTears]

Your candidate would be a damn poor choice to be president.
ONE of my candidates. I may have voted for Obama in this poll, but that STILL doesn't mean I'm ruling out McCain as an option for me.


That you disagree that associating with these people for 20 years is poor judgement does not change the fact that it is poor judgement, or that these were the people that shaped his life views, mentored him spiritually and politically, and even helped him buy his house.
And yet he didn't adopt their "bad" habits or points of view. You would think that would speak more about his character that he doesn't blindly believe everything that he hears, especially from people he works closely with.

Now if you could please, seriously, answer my previous request.


Originally Posted by Mabus
Since he got less popular votes then his opponent, and did not have the pledged delegates to win, the DNC RBC and the super delegates (party elites) chose him.You keep stating this, and I'd like to know why (mostly regarding the delegates portion).

[Clove]

I do criticise someone I firmly believe is bad for this country, I agree. Your candidate would be a damn poor choice to be president.

The main ingredient of a good president (in my opinion) is sound judgement.

In my opinion, he has shown an amazing lack of judgement for 20 years in his associations with racists, anti-Semites, domestic terrorists and criminals.Fixed it for you. You don't like his associations and consider it bad judgement, however that is pure opinion.

Judgement - the capacity to assess situations or circumstances shrewdly and to draw sound conclusions.

Judgement - the cognitive process of reaching a decision or drawing conclusions.

He has demonstrated enough good judgement to be competent lawyer, legislator and finally executive (in running his campaign). Who he associates with may be a personal decision but it is a weak assessment of his judgement. His legislative record at the state and federal level doesn't indicate any poor ability to form conclusions. Nor does it indicate racist or anti-semitic tendencies, nor has he been shown to engage in corrupt practices (yet, he is from Chicago).

He's also an excellent speaker (like Winston Churchill).

[Hulkein]

Lol .... are you serious?

Did he not meet with evangelicals for their endorsements? Some of the very same people he referred to as "agents of intolerance"?

Beyond that ... don't fall into the PB trap. He loves to pull the "src plz".

Last I heard he was denying endorsements/meetings with some of the intolerant preachers.

[Hulkein]

Why does everyone spell judgment with an E between g and m?

[Stanley Burrell]

Why does everyone spell judgment with an E between g and m?

Physics.

[Clove]

Why does everyone spell judgment with an E between g and m?It can be spelled either way. Deal with it. Why do doofy Englishmen spell color with a u?

[Tsa`ah]

Last I heard he was denying endorsements/meetings with some of the intolerant preachers.

After he raised the point about Wright, the Wright frenzy died ... and then he couldn't escape or adequately answer why his "seeking" evangelical endorsements was any different (and he figured out it would be more damaging to him than Wright ever could be to Obama) he repudiated the endorsements.

He did seek them out, it's not only documented ... but filmed.

That being said, I acknowledge that McCain was doing what he felt was needed (at the time) the clean up his appearance for the Bush Republican base. His rhetoric now is slowly returning to the McCain most of us know.

[Mabus]

Nor does it indicate racist or anti-semitic tendencies, nor has he been shown to engage in corrupt practices (yet, he is from Chicago).

He was racist when he stated:
"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity — she doesn’t. But she is a typical white person who, you know, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, there is a reaction. That has been bred into our experiences that don’t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way."
(bold my own)

This was after his speech in which he claimed:
"I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. "
(bold my own)

Can you imagine the uproar if McCain spoke of a "typical black person" after a speech that discussed the race of a person uttering racial and ethnic stereotypes?

A racist is a racist. He learned from Wright (his "spiritual mentor"), who is really into racism. He studied well.

[CrystalTears]

That's racist?! You have got to be kidding me.

[Clove]

He was racist when he stated:
"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity — she doesn’t. But she is a typical white person who, you know, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, there is a reaction. That has been bred into our experiences that don’t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way."
(bold my own)That's debatable, but you don't read well do you? You must have a short attention span because what I actually stated was Obama's legislative record didn't indicate any racist tendencies.

You're taking a play from the PC-language nazis playbook, but it doesn't make it any less assinine an assertion.

[Tsa`ah]

I speak of those that fit the stereotypes doing nothing to help alter the poor perceptions of their race ... often.

Maybe now I'm a racist.

Obama's statements weren't in the least bit racist. Now had McCain mentioned the "typical black person" in the sense that the stereotype was his reference ... then yes ... that would be racist. If he spoke of the typical black person who faces constant social, economic, and educational struggles ... that would not be.

I know plenty of white people that pull a "Michael Bolton" if they see a homeless guy selling crap on a street corner or cross the road if a group of black men are walking their way.

These are responses to social sets we're taught or that we learn. There are racist tones to them, but most people overcome them. That Obama pointed this out and you take it as racist is pretty fucking funny.

Sure, he could have said it better ... then again your dad could have pulled out a few seconds sooner and I wouldn't have to explain this shit to an idiot.

[landy]

I love Mabus' posts, always good for a laugh. Especially this line:

"He learned from Wright (his "spiritual mentor"), who is really into racism."

Saying someone is "into" racism, and saying they are racist, are linguistically worlds apart. I'm sure you meant the latter, but this is exactly why you are such a riot, Mabus. Ignorance combined with rhetoric to hilarious proportions.

[CrystalTears]

He was racist when he stated:
"I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. "
I bolded MY own. See where he said he cringed? His own grandmother would say things that he didn't approve of and that's his family! His flesh and blood and he doesn't agree with her!

I know, it's a shocking concept to you, but it does happen that someone doesn't adopt every bad example set by people close to them. It seems like you're the one who is blinded by sheer dislike for something you don't even comprehend.

[Mabus]

That's racist?! You have got to be kidding me.
Let's play a hypothetical:


News report !
McCain gave a historic speech today where he said, "My friend, I have a friend, my friend. And he is my black friend, friends. And he admitted to me that he disliked white people, and I often heard him uttering racial and ethic slurs."

News report!
Today in a radio interview McCain said, "My friends, that friend of mine was a typical black person, friends."


There would be immediate calls for him to drop out of the race. Jackson and Sharpton would be standing atop the highest stack of bibles they could get calling his comments "racist".

Now let us skip the hypothetical and go for the real:
"Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88," Bill Clinton said at a rally in Columbia. "Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."

What did they say that comment stating that a good campaign was run? Racist.

Double standards need not apply.

[Mabus]

I bolded MY own. See where he said he cringed?
Yes, but see were he called her "a typical white person"?

[CrystalTears]

First of all, if people had a problem with that McCain scenario without any context, they're retarded.

Had he said afterwards, "and I feel that this is a problem we have to face in this country, for people not to feel this way." it would make it not racist.

But had he followed it up with "and I don't blame him one bit", then yes, it would be a racist issue.

[crb]

Can you elaborate please? Try to be specific.

Sure....

There are two types of judges available to be appointed; activist and constructionist.

Activist judges believe that our Constitution a “living Document,” and therefore, subject to interpretation and change depending on their opinion on any given matter at any given time. They believe that they have the power to determine the lifestyle of the American people without having to consult the people themselves.

Constructionist judges, on the other hand, believe that our Constitution is a document which belongs to the people and that only the people have the right to change it. They consider themselves to be servants of the people and limited to interpreting and enforcing the constitution only as it was written by the founding fathers. They believe that their job is to enforce and protect the rights of We the People.

[Mabus]

But had he followed it up with "and I don't blame him one bit", then yes, it would be a racist issue.
Improperly stereotyping persons (or groups) based upon race is one way to define racism.

It was racist.

What was the basis for TheDNCChosenOne's former church's "religion"? Black Liberation Theology. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology) A thoroughly racist "branch" of christianity. This is the theology of his "spiritual mentor" of 20 years, Wright.

[crb]

Our founding fathers would have been considered domestic terrorists by today's standards. Shay's rebellion. Specific acts committed by groups and individuals leading up to the civil war.

I don't agree with the tactics employed by TWU during the Viet Nam war, but I would be hard pressed to call these acts of terrorism when put into historic context.

The time has come and gone for the argument that Wright is a racist or an anti-semite. It seems the only people who haven't let this weak argument go are those so far to the right that are associated with those that plant bombs in planned parenthood buildings.

Poor judgement didn't take a young man from an impoverished background through college and an Ivy League law school, a short stint as an educator ... to and through a state senate seat .... all the way through one of the hardest fought primaries to become a historic presidential candidate.

You could use that argument for Bush, but even I would admit that it would be a very weak argument.


I don't agree with the tactics employed by TWU during the Viet Nam war, but I would be hard pressed to call these acts of terrorism when put into historic context.

It is true, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, however, if we go by the dictionary definition of terrorism, it fits the bill solidly.

[crb]

Nor does it indicate racist or anti-semitic tendencies, nor has he been shown to engage in corrupt practices (yet, he is from Chicago).

He's also an excellent speaker (like Winston Churchill).

Um... okay... you know that Tony Rezko more or less bought him a house right?

Sure, compared to the stuff the Clintons have pulled that is nothing, but I wouldn't exactly call Obama free from corruption.

[Mabus]

I. Ignorance combined with rhetoric to hilarious proportions.
Glad you get some entertainment from them!
;)

I prefer my style to off-topic posts, and often attempts at personal attacks, that most posters in this forum use. Kind of like your post, hilarious and ironic.

[ClydeR]

Sure....

There are two types of judges available to be appointed; activist and constructionist.

Activist judges believe that our Constitution a “living Document,” and therefore, subject to interpretation and change depending on their opinion on any given matter at any given time. They believe that they have the power to determine the lifestyle of the American people without having to consult the people themselves.

Constructionist judges, on the other hand, believe that our Constitution is a document which belongs to the people and that only the people have the right to change it. They consider themselves to be servants of the people and limited to interpreting and enforcing the constitution only as it was written by the founding fathers. They believe that their job is to enforce and protect the rights of We the People.

Exactly. And the difference between judicial activism and strict construction is always clear. It all goes back to the case where the judges said that it is unconstitutional for states to make contraceptives illegal. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that the constitution never says anything about contraceptives. The judges just made it up, and that case has been a precedent for all sorts of socially divisive issues.

The oldest judges on the Supreme Court are the most liberal ones. The next president will have a chance to replace at least two of the liberal judges, setting the stage for a reversal of the activist precedents.

[Parkbandit]

I don't agree with the tactics employed by TWU during the Viet Nam war, but I would be hard pressed to call these acts of terrorism when put into historic context.


The only way you would be hard pressed to call them terrorists, would be an ignorance of what a terrorist is.. or an ignorance of what TWU did.

[Kembal]

Um... okay... you know that Tony Rezko more or less bought him a house right?

Sure, compared to the stuff the Clintons have pulled that is nothing, but I wouldn't exactly call Obama free from corruption.

You may want to read his interview with the Chicago Sun-Times. Based on the records of the transaction and the statements of the sellers to the Sun-Times, Rezko was not involved with the purchase of the house.

[Kembal]

Sure....

There are two types of judges available to be appointed; activist and constructionist.

Activist judges believe that our Constitution a “living Document,” and therefore, subject to interpretation and change depending on their opinion on any given matter at any given time. They believe that they have the power to determine the lifestyle of the American people without having to consult the people themselves.

Constructionist judges, on the other hand, believe that our Constitution is a document which belongs to the people and that only the people have the right to change it. They consider themselves to be servants of the people and limited to interpreting and enforcing the constitution only as it was written by the founding fathers. They believe that their job is to enforce and protect the rights of We the People.

Great. However, activist judges can be conservative or liberal, and constructionist judges can be conservative or liberal.

Your last sentences in your definitions are ridiculously biased and loaded, by the way.

[cizzymac]

Back to topic...

Obama

Watching McCain's half-hearted speech the other night in front of that fugly green banner with that bored-looking crowd with his crooked, insincere grinning and his stolen slogan and website icon pretty much sums up what I think about him and his campaign. He panders for votes. In a YouTube world, that just doesn't, nor should it, work anymore.

[Ravenstorm]

Great. However, activist judges can be conservative or liberal, and constructionist judges can be conservative or liberal.

You are totally and completely wrong. Pretty much by definition, an "activist judge" is one whose rulings you don't agree with. So to a conservative (just about the only ones who use the term 'activist judge'), a conservative judge can never ever be an activist. They are merely upholding tried and true traditions and interpreting the Constitution in the way the founders wrote it.

It's a fact. :sagenods:

[Apathy]

Official odds current as of this 12:17 am June 6th. Obama is quite the favorite thus far at -140 to McCain's even money.


Odds
Odds On: Who will be named as the Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee for the 2008 Presidential Election?

Barack Obama's camp must officially announce thatone of the listed competitors has been chosen for wagers to have action. Any wagers placed after the outcome is public knowledge will be graded as No Action. Singles Only. Max. $50.

Evan Bayh
35/1



I like those odds right there. I'm pretty familiar with Bayh, serving a temporary sentence in Indiana (just lived there, but its pretty much like prison). Bayh is a very popular candidate with what is a very red state.

Could be just what Obama needs.

[Clove]

Um... okay... you know that Tony Rezko more or less bought him a house right?

Sure, compared to the stuff the Clintons have pulled that is nothing, but I wouldn't exactly call Obama free from corruption.Uh, no he didn't by any stretch of the imagination "more or less" buy Obama's house. Tony Rezko's wife, however bought the property adjoining Obama's house. Tony contributed at least 250k in campaign funds over the years and was also a former client of Obama's.

[Keller]

Sure....

There are two types of judges available to be appointed; activist and constructionist.

Activist judges believe that our Constitution a “living Document,” and therefore, subject to interpretation and change depending on their opinion on any given matter at any given time. They believe that they have the power to determine the lifestyle of the American people without having to consult the people themselves.

Constructionist judges, on the other hand, believe that our Constitution is a document which belongs to the people and that only the people have the right to change it. They consider themselves to be servants of the people and limited to interpreting and enforcing the constitution only as it was written by the founding fathers. They believe that their job is to enforce and protect the rights of We the People.

I was hoping you could be more helpful and actually spell out when a judge is being an "activist".

Do you have any examples of activism vs. constructionism? Try to limit the use of pejoritive adjectives and adverbs and contain your explanation to past decisions and why those decisions either "interpret and change the constitution" or "interpret and enforce the constitution". Please be sure to tell us what about the constitution they are interpreting or changing. I'm curious to know the distinction you might see.

[Parkbandit]

Uh, no he didn't by any stretch of the imagination "more or less" buy Obama's house. Tony Rezko's wife, however bought the property adjoining Obama's house. Tony contributed at least 250k in campaign funds over the years and was also a former client of Obama's.


Correct. Rezko didn't pay for Obama's house.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4111483

Rezko's behind-the-scenes connection in the Obama house deal became public as Rezko revealed personal financial details as he sought to post bail.
While Rezko's wife paid the full asking price for the land, Obama paid $300,000 under the asking price for the house. The house sold for $1,650,000 and the price Rezko's wife paid for the land was $625,000.

[crb]

Uh, no he didn't by any stretch of the imagination "more or less" buy Obama's house. Tony Rezko's wife, however bought the property adjoining Obama's house. Tony contributed at least 250k in campaign funds over the years and was also a former client of Obama's.
Really, then why has Obama apologized for his "bone headed mistake"?

Alright, so lets pretend there is an apple seller and Obama and Rezko are walking down the street and Rezko says "Lets get apples" So he approaches the seller and says "How much for two apples?" And the seller says "$10" and Rezko says "Okay, how about you charge me $9 for my apple, and that apple right next door to it you sell to my friend here for $1."

Because that is exactly what happened. Obama paid below market value for his house when Rezko bought the house right next door from the same seller on the exact same day for above market value.

[crb]

I was hoping you could be more helpful and actually spell out when a judge is being an "activist".

Do you have any examples of activism vs. constructionism? Try to limit the use of pejoritive adjectives and adverbs and contain your explanation to past decisions and why those decisions either "interpret and change the constitution" or "interpret and enforce the constitution". Please be sure to tell us what about the constitution they are interpreting or changing. I'm curious to know the distinction you might see.
You are obviously being argumentative and you obviously understand what I posted.

I believe the purpose of the judicial branch is to engage in judicial review. Meaning they say whether or not laws passed by the legislative branch pass constitutional muster, and by constitional muster I mean by the original true meaning of the constitution. I believe that the constitution shouldn't be legally "changed" by a majority supreme court opinion, as our founding fathers never wanted that. Instead, they outlined a procedure for adding ammendments to the constitution and if the constitution where to be changed that is the appropriate procedure for doing so. Not so much intrepreting as following, else it is merely a sidestep of the balance of power which keeps our government relatively in check.

When judges legislate from the bench by infering new meaning to the constitution that did not exist previously they are taking power from the legislative branch that is, in effect, the people as the legislative branch is made up of representatives elected by the people.

This is no different than the flag burning ammendment. I am against it for a variety of reasons, namely because the genius of the constitution is that it isn't meant to govern the people, it is meant to govern the government. When the constitution has been used in the past to govern the people (prohibition) it was a disaster, but moreso it was wrong to use it in such a way. Any law that governs the people is supposed to be subject to judicial review, and trying to make an ammendment to bypass that bypasses our system of checks and balances. Just like judges making up new interpretations bypasses checks and balances by skirting the legislature in their stated role of making new laws.

..and whoever said that there can be activist conservative judges, you're right, but I think they're less likely to be so, and in any case McCain has committed to the right kind of judges, Obama has said he admires some of the worst.

To say it another way and really dumb it down. I prefer judges who take the constitution literally and traditionally and who follow it to the letter. Not those who try to twist and bend it and infer meaning that isn't there in order to push an agenda.

[Keller]

Do you have any examples of activist vs. constructionist opinions?

[Parkbandit]

Really, then why has Obama apologized for his "bone headed mistake"?

Alright, so lets pretend there is an apple seller and Obama and Rezko are walking down the street and Rezko says "Lets get apples" So he approaches the seller and says "How much for two apples?" And the seller says "$10" and Rezko says "Okay, how about you charge me $9 for my apple, and that apple right next door to it you sell to my friend here for $1."

Because that is exactly what happened. Obama paid below market value for his house when Rezko bought the house right next door from the same seller on the exact same day for above market value.


Not exactly. Obama purchased land and a house, Rezko purchased land. It very well could have happened just as Obama stated.. that the house was discounted because there had been no offers on it.. but the land had multiple offers.

[Mabus]

He panders for votes.
Kind of like a certain candidate that dislikes flag pins wearing a dual Israel/USA flag pin during his AIPAC speech?

[Tsa`ah]

It is true, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, however, if we go by the dictionary definition of terrorism, it fits the bill solidly.


The only way you would be hard pressed to call them terrorists, would be an ignorance of what a terrorist is.. or an ignorance of what TWU did.

How many innocent people were harmed or killed again? Oh right .... none. Only three of their own.


Um... okay... you know that Tony Rezko more or less bought him a house right?

Sure, compared to the stuff the Clintons have pulled that is nothing, but I wouldn't exactly call Obama free from corruption.


Correct. Rezko didn't pay for Obama's house.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4111483

Rezko's behind-the-scenes connection in the Obama house deal became public as Rezko revealed personal financial details as he sought to post bail.
While Rezko's wife paid the full asking price for the land, Obama paid $300,000 under the asking price for the house. The house sold for $1,650,000 and the price Rezko's wife paid for the land was $625,000.

Oh noes! Obama bought a 2 million dollar home for 15% off of the asking price ... he's a fucking crook. Even more so that he bought a small portion of the adjacent lot for 100k!!!!!!!!!

The only part of this that stinks is that the name Rezko was involved. Don't you people have anything bigger ... or better?


Really, then why has Obama apologized for his "bone headed mistake"?

Alright, so lets pretend there is an apple seller and Obama and Rezko are walking down the street and Rezko says "Lets get apples" So he approaches the seller and says "How much for two apples?" And the seller says "$10" and Rezko says "Okay, how about you charge me $9 for my apple, and that apple right next door to it you sell to my friend here for $1."

Because that is exactly what happened. Obama paid below market value for his house when Rezko bought the house right next door from the same seller on the exact same day for above market value.

Wow ... your analogy sucked. Obama paid a tenth of the value the way you spin it. He purchased the home for 15% below the asking price. It happens DAILY.

Perhaps if you would have changed the wording a bit ... maybe ...

"How much for one apple?"

"That would be 10 bucks"

"Hmmm ... Ok ... I'll take a third of it for 3 bucks"

"I'll take the other 2/3, but you're going to have to knock off a buck"

"Deal"

"2/3 of an apple doesn't really do it for me"

"Give me a buck and you can have a third of my portion"

"Done"

Doesn't really look that nefarious when the spin is taken off.

[CrystalTears]

Kind of like a certain candidate that dislikes flag pins wearing a dual Israel/USA flag pin during his AIPAC speech?
My God you have such a axe to grind. Flag pin? WHO THE FUCK CARES!

[Parkbandit]

How many innocent people were harmed or killed again? Oh right .... none. Only three of their own.

Ah.. so now we have Tsa'ah, pulling a Backlash and redefining words to suit his cause. Check.

Like I said.. you would have to be ignorant on either the definition of terrorism.. or on the Weatherman Underground. Thank you for proving my point.



Doesn't really look that nefarious when the spin is taken off.

Doesn't really look that nefarious if we put a spin on it.

[ElanthianSiren]

After 8 years of Yogi Bush, all the candidates are excellent speakers by comparison.

There is actually a really good Youtube video comparing Bush when he was running to be governor of Texas to Pres Bush debating-wise. The contrast is really amazing.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NvVilAlCBYc&feature=related


I don't know who I'm voting for yet. I'm leaning toward McCain, but it's going to depend on his VP choice. If he tries to conservative up by picking a Dick Cheney mold, it's off.

[CrystalTears]

More like 14 years ago. He's been speaking the same since he's been president.

[ElanthianSiren]

Well the vid was submitted 2 years ago, so you're likely correct. There's also a larry king video from around the same time, where he's gov of texas, and again, very articulate, just a bit grayer.

The bumbling Bush IMO was handling.

[RichardCranium]

My God you have such a axe to grind. Flag pin? WHO THE FUCK CARES!

I care that he refuses to wear a flag pin.

[CrystalTears]

I care that he refuses to wear a flag pin.
Why? Do you really consider him a bad person for not wearing one?

[RichardCranium]

Not necessarily a bad person, but I feel it's unpatriotic. What reason would you have for not wearing a pin that stands as a symbol for the country you're trying to become the next leader of?

[Clove]

Not necessarily a bad person, but I feel it's unpatriotic. What reason would you have for not wearing a pin that stands as a symbol for the country you're trying to become the next leader of?I don't wear a flag pin. I don't have a reason for not wearing one. I guess I'm unpatriotic.

[RichardCranium]

I don't wear a flag pin. I don't have a reason for not wearing one. I guess I'm unpatriotic.

You're not running for president of the United States of America.

[ElanthianSiren]

I'm more bothered by Obama's inexperience than what he choses not to wear. After a president who had very little experience and admitted that he let others think for him often, I don't think we can afford 4-8 years of that again.

If Obama picks a VP with strong military and foreign relations experience, I'll reconsider. If McCain picks a conservative who is far right, again, I'll reconsider. All about the VPs right now.

[Clove]

You're not running for president of the United States of America.So what? Wearing a flag pin doesn't make you patriotic or unpatriotic. *Edit What you suggest is ridiculous, the President doesn't have a different standard of patriotism than any other citizen. What's unpatriotic for him would be unpatriotic for you, and vice versa. Edit* It's an accessory. It doesn't speak to anyone's ability to lead and the insistence (by people like you) that a President ought to wear one is probably one of the most fundamentally UNamerican sentiment I can think of.

[RichardCranium]

So what? Wearing a flag pin doesn't make you patriotic or unpatriotic. It's an accessory. It doesn't speak to anyone's ability to lead and the insistence (by people like you) that a President ought to wear one is probably one of the most fundamentally UNamerican sentiment I can think of.


If you were running for office and someone asked you to wear a flag pin would you refuse? If so, why?

As I asked before, what reason is there not to do it?

[Clove]

If you were running for office and someone asked you to wear a flag pin would you refuse? If so, why?

As I asked before, what reason is there not to do it?Why do you need a reason? Maybe because he has the right to wear what he chooses? Why should you or I or anyone wear a pin because someone else asks us to? And if we don't that means we aren't patriotic? Get your head out of your ass.

[RichardCranium]

Why do you need a reason? Maybe because he has the right to wear what he chooses? Why should you or I or anyone wear a pin because someone else asks us to? And if we don't that means we aren't patriotic? Get your head out of your ass.

You didn't answer the question. Like it or not, you most certainly do have to have a reason not to want to wear a symbol of this country when running for it's highest office.

[Clove]

You didn't answer the question. Like it or not, you most certainly do have to have a reason not to want to wear a symbol of this country when running for it's highest office.No, you don't. There's no law. There's no etiquette book on patriotism. He's free to wear or not wear the pin.

[RichardCranium]

No, you don't. There's no law. There's no etiquette book on patriotism. He's free to wear or not wear the pin.

Yes he is, but there still must be a reason. He has to know that some people ( particularly the ones with their heads up their asses ) will question it. So it must be a good reason. My only question is, what it is?

[Parkbandit]

Well, his wife was proud of this country for the first time just a few short months ago... maybe she didn't allow him to wear one?

Just sayin.

[ElanthianSiren]

He gave it in an interview. He won't wear it because he prefers to show he loves his country through actions, rather than accessories.

-Believe him or think he's full of shit? He did give a reason.

[Parkbandit]

He gave it in an interview. He won't wear it because he prefers to show he loves his country through actions, rather than accessories.

-Believe him or think he's full of shit? He did give a reason.

I choose the latter. But I HOPE he can CHANGE.

[RichardCranium]

Yeah, I saw the interview. And I still have to question the decision. You're running for president. You have to know that some people will view it negatively. Why not just wear it?

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, I saw the interview. And I still have to question the decision. You're running for president. You have to know that some people will view it negatively. Why not just wear it?

To be honest, I don't have an issue with him wearing a flag or not wearing a flag. By itself, this is a non-issue.

[RichardCranium]

I'm just curious as to why he wouldn't when every vote counts. Why hand out ammunition? It speaks to his conviction though, I'll give him that.

[Ilvane]

Yeah, doesn't explain the no saluting the flag (search on youtube for the video) his wife being just now proud of her country..and adding the flag bit to it..well, you know.

I can see where the Republicans can use patriotism as an issue. Especially since there isn't much question of McCain's patriotism.

Angela

[Clove]

Yeah, doesn't explain the no saluting the flag (search on youtube for the video) his wife being just now proud of her country..and adding the flag bit to it..well, you know.

I can see where the Republicans can use patriotism as an issue. Especially since there isn't much question of McCain's patriotism.

AngelaI imagine if we followed around everyone with a camera we could catch the majority not saluting the flag once or twice. He does salute the flag, he didn't then. Does it look bad? Yes. Is it a retarded criterion? Yes.

As for his wife. Completely a non-issue.

Hey Mabus Jr. since you're read so much about Obama, why don't you criticize his policies instead of wasting our time with foolish assertions about his patriotism.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, doesn't explain the no saluting the flag (search on youtube for the video) his wife being just now proud of her country..and adding the flag bit to it..well, you know.

I can see where the Republicans can use patriotism as an issue. Especially since there isn't much question of McCain's patriotism.

Angela


Ah, the old "REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO USE IT!".. you merely mention it.. but those fucking evil republicans will USE it!

You most certainly are a Hillary supporter.. you even use her tactics. Well played.

[RichardCranium]

I imagine if we followed around everyone with a camera we could catch the majority not saluting the flag once or twice. He does salute the flag, he didn't then. Does it look bad? Yes. Is it a retarded criterion? Yes.

As for his wife. Completely a non-issue.

Hey Mabus Jr. since you're read so much about Obama, why don't you criticize his policies instead of wasting our time with foolish assertions about his patriotism.


I know its how things are done on the internet in general and the PC in particular but you don't have to be such a bag of douche just because you disagree with someone.

[Parkbandit]

I imagine if we followed around everyone with a camera we could catch the majority not saluting the flag once or twice. He does salute the flag, he didn't then. Does it look bad? Yes. Is it a retarded criterion? Yes.

As for his wife. Completely a non-issue.

Hey Mabus Jr. since you're read so much about Obama, why don't you criticize his policies instead of wasting our time with foolish assertions about his patriotism.

I disagree that his wife is a completely non-issue.

And I love how you claim everyone who questions Obama is considered a Mabus Jr. You need a new schtick... that one is retarded. Or perhaps, since you and Backlash are ardent Obama supporters.. perhaps we should call you Backlash Jr.?

[CrystalTears]

A pin doesn't make you patriotic. I see no reason why he should wear one if he feels it doesn't make or break your patriotism, which I agree with.

I don't wear a pink ribbon, I guess that means I don't support the National Breast Cancer Foundation. /smirk

Why do you call Clove an Obama supporter when it looks like he's leaning towards McCain? (he voted for McCain in this thread anyway)

[RichardCranium]

A pin doesn't make you patriotic. I see no reason why he should wear one if he feels it doesn't make or break your patriotism, which I agree with.

I don't wear a pink ribbon, I guess that means I don't support the National Breast Cancer Foundation. /smirk...


If you were the acting president or trying to become the president of the foundation would you refuse to wear a pink ribbon to signify your allegiance to the cause?

[CrystalTears]

If you were the acting president or trying to become the president of the foundation would you refuse to wear a pink ribbon to signify your allegiance to the cause?
Yes because I hate sticking pins into my really nice expensive suits just to appease people for little things that don't mean anything.

[RichardCranium]

Yes because I hate putting sticking pins into my really nice expensive suits just to appease people for little things that don't mean anything.


They don't mean anything to you. They do mean something to many, many people.

[CrystalTears]

And I guess I don't care that people put such high value on trinkets to represent anything. I don't have to wear a cross to know and feel I'm Catholic either.

[Sean of the Thread]

Let's keep in mind that the vote in this thread/poll is who we think will win. People may or may not be voting for the man they support.

[Sean of the Thread]

And I guess I don't care that people put such high value on trinkets to represent anything. I don't have to wear a cross to know and feel I'm Catholic either.

Only the Catholic priests really know how to feel if you're Catholic.

[RichardCranium]

And I guess I don't care that people put such high value on trinkets to represent anything. I don't have to wear a cross to know and feel I'm Catholic either.

That's fair. And like I said, it definitely speaks to his conviction. But the flag does mean a lot to me in any of its forms. I just don't understand why he wouldn't do it, appeasement or not.

[CrystalTears]

I'm not a little boy. I'm off the hook.

[Gan]

Let's keep in mind that the vote in this thread/poll is who we think will win. People may or may not be voting for the man they support.

Winner.

[Clove]

I disagree that his wife is a completely non-issue.

And I love how you claim everyone who questions Obama is considered a Mabus Jr. You need a new schtick... that one is retarded. Or perhaps, since you and Backlash are ardent Obama supporters.. perhaps we should call you Backlash Jr.?Really? Everyone, or just Ilvane? You may disagree, but his wife will have as much to do with running the country as Hillary did. I suppose I would be concerned if I believed that spouses were automatons run by their partners. This continues to be a problem in a America where we lose track of a politicians worth as a leader by looking at their associations. I'm an accountant. My ability to be an accountant (or my integrity which is a very important part of my job) is not judged by whether or not people like my wife, or agree with which church I go to. It's your privilege to include it into your estimation, but frankly, it's ignorant.

[Mabus]

To be honest, I don't have an issue with him wearing a flag or not wearing a flag. By itself, this is a non-issue.
That is my view as well.

My response was to a poster stating McCain was "pandering". I pointed out that at AIPAC, the fella that does not like to wear a US flag, wore a dual US/Israel flag. That was obvious pandering for the pro-Israel Jewish vote.

[Mabus]

Hey Mabus Jr. since you're read so much about Obama, why don't you criticize his policies instead of wasting our time with foolish assertions about his patriotism.
I am shocked that again an attempt is made to compare one poster to another when the person doing the comparison has no intelligent argument. No, really... Alright, I am not. Tired tactics and "foolish assertions" are all you (and some others here) have left, Clove.

Hey Clove, why don't you do a policy comparison? I mean, since obviously only you can be unbiased, at least in your own mind.

[BigWorm]

They don't mean anything to you. They do mean something to many, many people.

I could say the same thing about American Idol.

[Stanley Burrell]

That is my view as well.

My response was to a poster stating McCain was "pandering". I pointed out that at AIPAC, the fella that does not like to wear a US flag, wore a dual US/Israel flag. That was obvious pandering for the pro-Israel Jewish vote.

Right. The Jewish vote. I'm sure it was only applicable to the retired inhabitants of Boca Raton and not the slightly younger ParkBandits.

[BigWorm]

Mabus and RichardCranium, I would like to thank you for helping me see that instead of looking at the candidates themselves and the policies they support, I can decide who I want to vote for based on whether or not that candidate wears a flag pin. Flag pins are the truest measure of patriotism.

[Stanley Burrell]

Right. The Jewish vote. I'm sure it was only applicable to the retired inhabitants of Boca Raton and not the slightly younger ParkBandits.

Look what McCain won before this summit began:

http://images.politico.com/global/florida-county-map.gif

[Mabus]

This continues to be a problem in a America where we lose track of a politicians worth as a leader by looking at their associations.
Associations, and the judgement used while making and maintaining them, is relevant to candidate selection. That you, or others, may believe it is not is a fault of your own, not of the people with the ability to make sound judgements on a candidate.

I'm an accountant. My ability to be an accountant (or my integrity which is a very important part of my job) is not judged by whether or not people like my wife, or agree with which church I go to.
If your wife was a convicted embezzler, or your church advocated stealing money, they would be relevant.

It's your privilege to include it into your estimation, but frankly, it's ignorant.
So if a candidate was endorsed by terrorists, thieves, racists and anti-Semites, wrote that a racist he knew for over 20 years was his "spiritual mentor", had a 20 year friendship with a known domestic terrorist and had help from a convicted criminal in purchasing his house using the gained knowledge of these associations in an estimation of a candidates worthiness would be "ignorant"?

No wonder you use lame forum tactics.

[RichardCranium]

Mabus and RichardCranium, I would like to thank you for helping me see that instead of looking at the candidates themselves and the policies they support, I can decide who I want to vote for based on whether or not that candidate wears a flag pin. Flag pins are the truest measure of patriotism.


They are if you're running for the highest office in the country yet refuse to wear a symbol of that country. Why would you do that? And this is looking at the candidate himself. There's more to running a country than just how a man has voted while in office. How has he voted in office, by the way?

[Mabus]

Mabus and RichardCranium, I would like to thank you for helping me see that instead of looking at the candidates themselves and the policies they support, I can decide who I want to vote for based on whether or not that candidate wears a flag pin. Flag pins are the truest measure of patriotism.
You might want to look at what I posted about flag pins before showing what an idiot you are. I just agreed with another poster that wearing one is a non-issue.

I do find that a candidate known for not wearing one who then wears one with the flags of two countries (his own, and the country he associates with the country of a group he is speaking to) is pandering.

Just thought I would help you out, as you obviously are not intelligent enough to see both points.

[Parkbandit]

Mabus and RichardCranium, I would like to thank you for helping me see that instead of looking at the candidates themselves and the policies they support, I can decide who I want to vote for based on whether or not that candidate wears a flag pin. Flag pins are the truest measure of patriotism.

I don't think either have stated that the reason they wouldn't vote for Obama is because he didn't wear a flag pin. So either you have a problem reading, or you are just retarded. Which is it?

[CrystalTears]

Except that Mabus tends to focus on non-issues.

[Stanley Burrell]

<<MABUS>>

It could've just been, you know, a diplomatic political gesture on foreign soil? I'm going to venture to say that dual flag pins have been worn by members of the Oval Office, as well as superdelegates overseas -- While not perforating ten-thousand dollar suits back home in the states.

But who knows. Maybe before 9-11 clothepins didn't exist.

[Mabus]

Except that Mabus tends to focus on non-issues.
Thank you for that insightful, issue-filled post, Catholic girl.

[Parkbandit]

Except that Mabus tends to focus on non-issues.

And you and the rest of the Obamaniacs focus on Mabus focusing on the non-issues.

Makes for great threads.. over and over and over and over again.

[CrystalTears]

Whatever PB. Just like you tend to blindly side with anyone who is against a Democrat.

[Parkbandit]

Really? Everyone, or just Ilvane? You may disagree, but his wife will have as much to do with running the country as Hillary did. I suppose I would be concerned if I believed that spouses were automatons run by their partners. This continues to be a problem in a America where we lose track of a politicians worth as a leader by looking at their associations. I'm an accountant. My ability to be an accountant (or my integrity which is a very important part of my job) is not judged by whether or not people like my wife, or agree with which church I go to. It's your privilege to include it into your estimation, but frankly, it's ignorant.

I disagree. Do you really think Hillary had no role in forming policy for Bill? Granted, they seem far from "happily married" but I know I take advice from my wife all the time. She is the single biggest influence on my decisions. To just discount that constant opinion is, frankly ignorant.

[Mabus]

<<MABUS>>

It could've just been, you know, a diplomatic political gesture on foreign soil? I'm going to venture to say that dual flag pins have been worn by members of the Oval Office, as well as superdelegates overseas -- While not perforating ten-thousand dollar suits back home in the states.

But who knows. Maybe before 9-11 clothepins didn't exist.
It was in Florida, while speaking to AIPAC, not foreign soil.

Rahm Emanuel endorsed him directly aftwerward, and took him to meet the AIPAC executive board.

Palestinians have been posting some wild things about him since, saying his speech proposed a stance "tougher then Bush".

This from a guy whose church had anti-Israel rants in its church newsletter and on its website. This from a guy that voted against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard being classified as a Terrorist Organization (75 senators voted "yes" in that vote).

It was pandering.

[Parkbandit]

Whatever PB. Just like you tend to blindly side with anyone who is against a Democrat.


Not really. Feel free to start a thread about the evil that is McCain and I'll likely join in as well.

Nice try though. Really.

[Clove]

Not really. Feel free to start a thread about the evil that is McCain and I'll likely join in as well.

Nice try though. Really.She's still right. You consider McCain a Democrat too.

[Parkbandit]

She's still right. You consider McCain a Democrat too.

BUT, he is a Republican by name... and she's wrong.

I don't give a shit about parties.. I judge people on their own merits and positions and how they compare to my own views regarding politics. It just happens to be that I've never been a real fan of socialism since it never works.. so I take issue with the politicians that have socialist agendas.

[Stanley Burrell]

It was in Florida, while speaking to AIPAC, not foreign soil.

Rahm Emanuel endorsed him directly aftwerward, and took him to meet the AIPAC executive board.

Palestinians have been posting some wild things about him since, saying his speech proposed a stance "tougher then Bush".

This from a guy whose church had anti-Israel rants in its church newsletter and on its website. This from a guy that voted against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard being classified as a Terrorist Organization (75 senators voted "yes" in that vote).

It was pandering.

Tell me when a politician doesn't pander. It might be the first time we'll have a statesman since the constitution was signed.

[BigWorm]

I don't think either have stated that the reason they wouldn't vote for Obama is because he didn't wear a flag pin. So either you have a problem reading, or you are just retarded. Which is it?

You have a history of creating false dichotomies. This means you are either retarded or severely retarded. Which one is it?

[Stanley Burrell]

BUT, he is a Republican by name... and she's wrong.

I don't give a shit about parties.. I judge people on their own merits and positions and how they compare to my own views regarding politics. It just happens to be that I've never been a real fan of socialism since it never works.. so I take issue with the politicians that have socialist agendas.

Here here.

[BigWorm]

I disagree. Do you really think Hillary had no role in forming policy for Bill? Granted, they seem far from "happily married" but I know I take advice from my wife all the time. She is the single biggest influence on my decisions. To just discount that constant opinion is, frankly ignorant.

Why am I not surprised that you have someone else make most of your important decisions for you? Maybe you'll be able to dress yourself sometime soon.

[Parkbandit]

Why am I not surprised that you have someone else make most of your important decisions for you? Maybe you'll be able to dress yourself sometime soon.

Is English your 3rd language or something? Clearly you have issues understanding the written form of it. Here, this lesson is a free one:

Here's what I said:



I take advice from my wife all the time. She is the single biggest influence on my decisions.

Notice it didn't say "Make most of your important decisions for you"? Maybe you are confused with the term "influence".. it is a big word for someone like you. Maybe ask someone to help you look it up? Here is a big clue though.. influence does not mean make.

Just so we're clear... I don't blame you for your stupidity.. I blame society for just letting stupid people like you get pushed through the public school without learning much.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Obama, but I'll also not be upset if McCain wins.

As much as people are trying to make him look like a psycho George Bush lover, his voting record and his stance on issues shows him to be a moderate. I honestly don't think any politician is going to look to George Bush as a model for being a good president-- right now he's just trying to get votes and I understand that.

And while I'm not a big fan of the theory that McCain is gonna overturn Roe v. Wade, since reproductive rights of women is one of my key "interested in" social issues and an issue I base a lot of my volunteer work around, it does weigh a lot in why I prefer Obama to McCain.

[Tsa`ah]

Ah.. so now we have Tsa'ah, pulling a Backlash and redefining words to suit his cause. Check.

There's nothing to "redefine". We're expressing opinions ... your position is that Ayers is/was a terrorist ... mine is that he the group he held affiliation with were not.

It's really the population that decides .... not you or I. When you consider how Ayers is regarded today in the communities he works in ... well I'd say opinion is against you.


Like I said.. you would have to be ignorant on either the definition of terrorism.. or on the Weatherman Underground. Thank you for proving my point.

I'm ignorant of neither. Only 3 people were killed during any attack fronted by the Weatherman. They didn't take out civilians or target them. There was nothing of the caliber of a federal building and a rental moving truck. No twin towers. No one walking into a mall and blowing themselves up in order to take out as many people as they could.

Most of what this group did was in response to how the government was reacting to groups like the Black Panthers ... they responded to perceived tyranny.


Doesn't really look that nefarious if we put a spin on it.

What spin is that? The fact that he purchased a home for 15% below asking price ... something that happens very regularly? Or the fact that he purchased a strip of the connecting lot for market price .... a sixth of that lot for 100k.

There isn't any spin to it outside of what CRB and yourself tried to pull. The only thing suspicious about this whole deal is that Rezko was involved. If that name were substituted with Jim Smith ... no one would bat an eye.

[Mabus]

There's nothing to "redefine". We're expressing opinions ... your position is that Ayers is/was a terrorist ... mine is that he the group he held affiliation with were not.

Considering the FBI's definition of "domestic terrorism" to be:
"the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

Or Merriam Webster:
"the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"

Now I can agree that sometimes "terrorism" is an overly general term, but the Weather Underground certainly fits within any accepted definition of a terrorist organization that I can find.

I cannot see how anyone could believe that bombing the Pentagon, bombing police stations, blowing up police cars, committing robbery of armored cars to fund the operations and providing the media with threats of violence in an attempt to force a political change upon the US government, by US citizens, is not to be considered domestic terrorism.

Can you provide your definition of terrorism, please?

[Furrowfoot]

I would much rather that you have a critique of his actual issues, Mabus. Not who he knows, what church he goes to, his sentence structure, the way he holds his hands, what he pours in his coffee... they are all unimportant and irrelevant.

If this is all you have, you just convince me more and more that he's the candidate for me.

I have to say, if one of the candidates went public with the fact that they don't taint their coffee with creamer or sugar, they might sway my vote...

Well, not really, but untainted coffee FTW.

[thefarmer]

Can you provide your definition of terrorism, please?

A few definitions of domestic terrorism.

One.

Two.

EDIT: The links worked earlier. Oh well.

[Parkbandit]

A few definitions of domestic terrorism.

One. (http://forum.gsplayers.com/search.php?searchid=1469832).

Two. (http://forum.gsplayers.com/search.php?searchid=1469834)

You suck at linking.

[Parkbandit]

There's nothing to "redefine". We're expressing opinions ... your position is that Ayers is/was a terrorist ... mine is that he the group he held affiliation with were not.

It's really the population that decides .... not you or I. When you consider how Ayers is regarded today in the communities he works in ... well I'd say opinion is against you.

Really? Opinion is against me? Then why are we even having this discussion? You are starting to use Gore tactics here... "THE SCIENCE IS IN, THE DEBATE IS OVER!!"




I'm ignorant of neither. Only 3 people were killed during any attack fronted by the Weatherman. They didn't take out civilians or target them. There was nothing of the caliber of a federal building and a rental moving truck. No twin towers. No one walking into a mall and blowing themselves up in order to take out as many people as they could.

Most of what this group did was in response to how the government was reacting to groups like the Black Panthers ... they responded to perceived tyranny.

So.. you agree that you are ignorant on the definition of terrorism. Check. What the TWU did was the exact definition of the word.

[Tsa`ah]

Considering the FBI's definition of "domestic terrorism" to be:
"the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

Or Merriam Webster:
"the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"

Now I can agree that sometimes "terrorism" is an overly general term, but the Weather Underground certainly fits within any accepted definition of a terrorist organization that I can find.

I cannot see how anyone could believe that bombing the Pentagon, bombing police stations, blowing up police cars, committing robbery of armored cars to fund the operations and providing the media with threats of violence in an attempt to force a political change upon the US government, by US citizens, is not to be considered domestic terrorism.

Can you provide your definition of terrorism, please?

You're also intentionally omitting that all of the aforementioned entities were commonly used as political tools during the era in question ... and they were guilty of some pretty heinous acts on many levels.

Of course this is nothing new for you. If including the facts undermines your argument ... omit them.


Really? Opinion is against me? Then why are we even having this discussion? You are starting to use Gore tactics here... "THE SCIENCE IS IN, THE DEBATE IS OVER!!"

How many people consider you an esteemed educator? At what universities do you teach and on what subjects do you lecture?

What mayors of major metropolitan areas have tapped you for education reform?

To what philanthropic funds do you have a board seat on?


So.. you agree that you are ignorant on the definition of terrorism. Check. What the TWU did was the exact definition of the word.

Wow ... more comprehension FTL.

Is the salve for your ego? Making shit up and declaring victory? I'm far from ignorant of the term, I just don't live in a world where everything is black and white. I make up my own mind rather than allowing a belief to be fed to me and not ever questioning it. I'm not so impaired that I can't comprehend what is in front of me and have to run to a safe zone for the answer.

The point you (and Mabus) are missing is that you, nor I, will define how the world around us and in the future perceive history. Also lost on either of you is that there are a great many people (including Viet Nam vets) that don't look upon Ayers and the Weathermen in the same light as modern terrorists ... or even those brewed in our own back yard in the not so distant past.

[Parkbandit]

You're also intentionally omitting that all of the aforementioned entities were commonly used as political tools during the era in question ... and they were guilty of some pretty heinous acts on many levels.

Of course this is nothing new for you. If including the facts undermines your argument ... omit them.

And your typical maneuver is the same as Backlash's.. if the definition doesn't quite make your point.. change the definition.




How many people consider you an esteemed educator? At what universities do you teach and on what subjects do you lecture?

What mayors of major metropolitan areas have tapped you for education reform?

To what philanthropic funds do you have a board seat on?



Again.. taking a page out of Gore's manual.. if you aren't one of the following people, your opinion is discounted.. no matter what the facts are. You are quite the combination of Gore and Backlash.




Wow ... more comprehension FTL.

Is the salve for your ego? Making shit up and declaring victory? I'm far from ignorant of the term, I just don't live in a world where everything is black and white. I make up my own mind rather than allowing a belief to be fed to me and not ever questioning it. I'm not so impaired that I can't comprehend what is in front of me and have to run to a safe zone for the answer.

The point you (and Mabus) are missing is that you, nor I, will define how the world around us and in the future perceive history. Also lost on either of you is that there are a great many people (including Viet Nam vets) that don't look upon Ayers and the Weathermen in the same light as modern terrorists ... or even those brewed in our own back yard in the not so distant past.

Reading comprehension FTL is hysterical coming from you.. since you were given the definition of a terrorist.. and you still don't get it.

I realize YOU don't consider the Weathermen a terrorist organization.. but the US Government did and does. Go blow up a statue today to end the war in Iraq and see if you get classified as a domestic terrorist. I'm sure to your freakish liberal pals, you are a real freedom fighter.. but to the rest of the rational world, you are nothing but a terrorist by every definition of the word.

[Mabus]

You're also intentionally omitting that all of the aforementioned entities were commonly used as political tools during the era in question ... and they were guilty of some pretty heinous acts on many levels.

Of course this is nothing new for you. If including the facts undermines your argument ... omit them.



How many people consider you an esteemed educator? At what universities do you teach and on what subjects do you lecture?

What mayors of major metropolitan areas have tapped you for education reform?

To what philanthropic funds do you have a board seat on?



Wow ... more comprehension FTL.

Is the salve for your ego? Making shit up and declaring victory? I'm far from ignorant of the term, I just don't live in a world where everything is black and white. I make up my own mind rather than allowing a belief to be fed to me and not ever questioning it. I'm not so impaired that I can't comprehend what is in front of me and have to run to a safe zone for the answer.

The point you (and Mabus) are missing is that you, nor I, will define how the world around us and in the future perceive history. Also lost on either of you is that there are a great many people (including Viet Nam vets) that don't look upon Ayers and the Weathermen in the same light as modern terrorists ... or even those brewed in our own back yard in the not so distant past.
It is really easy, pal.

You do not believe the Weather Underground were domestic terrorists. You seem to be stating that planting bombs at the Pentagon, police stations and elsewhere is an acceptable political strategy, and that history will bear this out. I disagree.

Since the accepted definitions disagree with you, I asked that you provide your definition of "terrorism".

I look forward to your response.

[Tsa`ah]

....


....

I don't think the two of you combined could form a half-wit. Neither one of you care to look at all of the facts to base your conclusions on, let alone defend them.

You take the easy outs and cite the FBI or a dictionary reference. We can go that route and I can label both of you thieves, liars, and possibly drunk drivers that have endangered innocent lives. We can sit here all day and find definitions that fit if we ignore context.

I gave you simplicity and you chose lazy ... I gave you context and you chose to ignore it. If either of you can't be bothered to educate yourselves on anything that may (and in all likeliness ... will) challenge your beliefs, well I have nothing but pity for you.

[Mabus]

I don't think the two of you combined could form a half-wit. Neither one of you care to look at all of the facts to base your conclusions on, let alone defend them.
The facts are that the Weather Underground did plant bombs in public places in order to invoke terror and force a political change upon a government.

You are defending them, and believe they were not terrorists.


You take the easy outs and cite the FBI or a dictionary reference.
The Weather Underground's acts fit the accepted definitions of "terrorism". It is not the "easy outs" to use accepted definitions, it is called intelligent discussion.

Once again:
Provide your definition of terrorism.

There is an "easy outs" for you. Just post a definition of how you see the term so I know when addressing you which fantasy definition to use.

[BigWorm]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

[Parkbandit]

I don't think the two of you combined could form a half-wit. Neither one of you care to look at all of the facts to base your conclusions on, let alone defend them.

You take the easy outs and cite the FBI or a dictionary reference. We can go that route and I can label both of you thieves, liars, and possibly drunk drivers that have endangered innocent lives. We can sit here all day and find definitions that fit if we ignore context.

I gave you simplicity and you chose lazy ... I gave you context and you chose to ignore it. If either of you can't be bothered to educate yourselves on anything that may (and in all likeliness ... will) challenge your beliefs, well I have nothing but pity for you.


I think we're still awaiting your reinvented definition of terrorist. If you are not using a dictionary as a tool to define a word.. wtf are you using then?

[Tsa`ah]

So both of you accept the labeling of thieves and liars as a concession to labeling Ayers a terrorist .... nifty.

The satisfaction of debating slack jaws is oh so hollow.

[CrystalTears]

Call me crazy, but I don't understand people who are against a war, then bomb buildings in their own country.

[Parkbandit]

Call me crazy, but I don't understand people who are against a war, then bomb buildings in their own country.

You aren't crazy.. that's the opinion of most people. Tsa'ah wants to excuse the guy, so he's trying to redefine the term of terrorism.

Tsa'ah is truly a pundit of the English language. He laughs at dictionaries.

[Parkbandit]

So both of you accept the labeling of thieves and liars as a concession to labeling Ayers a terrorist .... nifty.

The satisfaction of debating slack jaws is oh so hollow.

If debating includes redefining words to fit your purpose, then you've already lost.

But we both knew that, didn't we.

[Tsa`ah]

Call me crazy, but I don't understand people who are against a war, then bomb buildings in their own country.

In no way am I trying to justify what they did ... but a pack of McVeigh's they were not.

When the police raid a Black Panther "house" and kill several members for opening fire, yet the only recovered casings and slugs were those from police firearms. When they arrest several members, beat them senseless and claim they were resisting ... yet the reality was that the police charged in and began beating members as they slept (I guess being awake prior to your beating means you're not resisting) ... and this seems to be condoned by (at times the will of) the government ... the reaction of such groups is to blow up police stations.

The Weatherman did not target civilians, they made targets of the government. That is the distinguishing characteristic for me. Terrorists go after the civilian population and hide within their own civilian ranks. The Weatherman did not do this.

I chalk it up yet another failed revolt ... not terrorism.

Mabus and PB are intent on using the text book definition and an FBI file to defend their claims ... and that's a pretty faulty defense to me. As noted, both could be deemed liars and thieves by their own logic.

If you were standing next to a Brit while waiting on a cab and the Brit asked you for a "fag" ... you wouldn't be wrong (except politically) if you jumped a plane to TX, boxed up Drew, and FedExed him to said Brit. Or maybe you're taking a walk along a harbor dock because you're a "hag" and heard there's a gay club in the area and you ask a sailor where all the fags are ... and he points you toward the end of the pier where there's a pile of rope with frayed ends.

[Mabus]

The Weatherman did not target civilians, they made targets of the government. That is the distinguishing characteristic for me. Terrorists go after the civilian population and hide within their own civilian ranks. The Weatherman did not do this.
In case you did not know, assembling a bomb is a federal crime if you are not licensed to do so. It was only through luck that civilians did not die. Good luck on the part of the civilians, and "bad luck" for the Weather Underground.

"I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough." -Bill Ayers

After members traveled to Cuba to meet with NVA and Cuban officials they began bombing police stations, police cars, bombed the capitol and the Pentagon, bombed a SF Dept. of health building (now there is revolution...), and the list goes on.

They were terrorists, plain and simple.

I chalk it up yet another failed revolt ... not terrorism.
Revolt against the Dept. of Health of San Francisco? Revolt against MIT? Bullshit.

Mabus and PB are intent on using the text book definition and an FBI file to defend their claims ...
And you are intent on using no definition for terrorism. You even claim this was a "revolt". I now believe the bombings, and you, are revolting.

and that's a pretty faulty defense to me.
So all of the accepted definitions of terrorism are not acceptable to you, I ask again:

Provide your definition of terrorism.


As noted, both could be deemed liars and thieves by their own logic.
This is the second time you stated this. The first time I thought you were just being an asshole, that you had no defense for dismissing the definitions so you have to name call. Now I think your twisted mind believes it.

Explain how we could be thieves and liars, in your view.

There, I placed the questions in bold for you, so they would be easy to find as your mind dreamed of failed leftist "revolts" that could have made the world more in your image.

[CrystalTears]

Well I did read that they would warn those in the buildings so that civilians could evacuate.

I believe them to be terrorists (and so does the US government), just not exactly in the same context we do when we refer to the kind who kill innocent people.

[BigWorm]

Well I did read that they would warn those in the buildings so that civilians could evacuate.

I believe them to be terrorists (and so does the US government), just not exactly in the same context we do when we refer to the kind who kill innocent people.

This is true. The only people ever hurt by a Weather Underground bomb were members of the WU.

[Stanley Burrell]

Anyone who set us up the bomb should be considered a suspected terrorist.

[Mabus]

This is true. The only people ever hurt by a Weather Underground bomb were members of the WU.
Physically injuries, possibly.

But how many people were terrorized by them? How much money did universities, organizations, private citizens and taxpayers lose or have to expend to fix the damages, the cost of investigations, prosecutions, imprisonments and provide extra security (and other areas of expense)?

"Hurt" can be measured in more then lives lost and physical injuries caused.

[CrystalTears]

During one of the bombings, the only ones who got hurt were three of the WU members who died.

Buildings can be rebuilt. Lives cannot.

[Mabus]

Buildings can be rebuilt. Lives cannot.
I could not agree more.

That still does not make it "victimless".

Someone had to pay to rebuild and repurchase. People still hid in fear from the bombers. Programs had to be changed, de-funded or granted more funding. Some bombs did not go off on time (or at all), and were not found until much later, providing a chance that they could have went off when buildings were fully populated.

That more lives were not lost does not make it any less "terrorism". It was a systematic use of violence by a group against our society done in an attempt to force political change.

[BigWorm]

It was a systematic use of violence by a group against our society done in an attempt to force political change.

That's called a war.

Look, I'm not saying that I support what the WU did, but they bombed government buildings and avoided any loss of life in an attempt to stop the Vietnam war which was costing many American and Vietnamese lives. I can see how some groups might feel it necessary to undertake such drastic measures in order to prevent the loss of life. Personally, I only support non-violent protest, but at the time the members of the WU honestly thought that those bombs would prevent the loss of more lives.

[Gan]

^^

The phrase delusional comes to mind.

[BigWorm]

^^

The phrase delusional comes to mind.

I said multiple times in that statement that I don't agree with any form of violent protest, but I was attempting the explain the mindset of the members of the WU. As I said before, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, meaning that depending on what direction you look at the facts from can affect how you categorize a group. Just because in the 1960's the FBI labeled the group a terrorist organization does not mean that they actually were. You must take into account the fact that during the Civil Rights and Vietnam War eras, the FBI labeled people like Martin Luther King Jr. as terrorists. I'm just advocating looking at the facts, which is doesn't seem like you, PB, and Mabus are interested in.

[Warriorbird]

This video clarifies terrorism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qItugh-fFgg

[Gan]

I said multiple times in that statement that I don't agree with any form of violent protest, but I was attempting the explain the mindset of the members of the WU. As I said before, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, meaning that depending on what direction you look at the facts from can affect how you categorize a group. Just because in the 1960's the FBI labeled the group a terrorist organization does not mean that they actually were. You must take into account the fact that during the Civil Rights and Vietnam War eras, the FBI labeled people like Martin Luther King Jr. as terrorists. I'm just advocating looking at the facts, which is doesn't seem like you, PB, and Mabus are interested in.

I think you mistook my post for describing you the previous poster or what you posted.

What's delusional is thinking that an act of violence against inanimate objects half a world away can stop a war (a half a world away).

Thats like getting mad at someone/thing and setting fire to your own car/house/significant other, thinking it will make you feel better or make things better.

Quit being so defensive.

[BigWorm]

I think you mistook my post for describing you the previous poster or what you posted.

What's delusional is thinking that an act of violence against inanimate objects half a world away can stop a war (a half a world away).

Thats like getting mad at someone/thing and setting fire to your own car/house/significant other, thinking it will make you feel better or make things better.

Quit being so defensive.

Ok, how would you stop your country from fighting an unjust war?

[CrystalTears]

Was the end of the Vietnam War a direct result of their actions?

[Parkbandit]

Ok, how would you stop your country from fighting an unjust war?


No, you are right. Bombing buildings is the only way in today's society to really get yourself heard.

You should go do it.

[Gan]

Ok, how would you stop your country from fighting an unjust war?

Vote someone new into office.

Thats your only solution in a Democracy.

[Stanley Burrell]

Anyone who set us up the bomb should be considered a suspected terrorist.


This video clarifies terrorism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qItugh-fFgg

I knew it.

[Mabus]

Ok, how would you stop your country from fighting an unjust war?

Non-violently protest, vote, contact your elected representatives, organize for those that are attempting to be elected to stop the unjust war, publicly boycott products by companies that supply the war products (or that seem in support of the war) and make sure the media are aware of all of your efforts.

Those are a few methods. None of them call for placing bombs to scare people. None of them are terrorism.

People like you make me question why I stand against the security measures that infringe on our liberties. Luckily, I believe that we cannot make laws restricting the freedom of lawful citizens because of the idiots like you. That anyone can believe that violence is an acceptable method of political change in our country is absurd.

[BigWorm]

Non-violently protest, vote, contact your elected representatives, organize for those that are attempting to be elected to stop the unjust war, publicly boycott products by companies that supply the war products (or that seem in support of the war) and make sure the media are aware of all of your efforts.

Those are a few methods. None of them call for placing bombs to scare people. None of them are terrorism.

People like you make me question why I stand against the security measures that infringe on our liberties. Luckily, I believe that we cannot make laws restricting the freedom of lawful citizens because of the idiots like you. That anyone can believe that violence is an acceptable method of political change in our country is absurd.

Obviously you can't read because I've already said multiple times in this thread that I do not support any time of violent protest. People like you are fucking retarded.

Do you really think a boycott is going to stop a war?

[Mabus]

People like you are fucking retarded.
Yes, those of us that believe that disenchanted citizens bombing targets in an attempt to force political change are committing acts of terrorism are retarded...

Those that believe people blowing up buildings are 'freedom fighters" are obviously spot on with reality...

Get a grip.

[CrystalTears]

Christ, how many times are you going to make BigWorm repeat the same shit over and over that he doesn't support violent protests? Fucking hell.

Boycotts don't accomplish anything because not enough people do it for it make enough of a difference to change anything. It's a ginormic waste of time.

I don't have any problem with non-violent protests though, although I don't believe it to help end wars. Protests for local problems, sure, but a war? Nah, I don't think it does anything either.

[Stanley Burrell]

Do you really think a boycott is going to stop a war?

If people boycotted this war by not paying taxes; in traditional boycotting numbers, war there would not be, Jedi.

People are huge vaginas though. Hopefully if there's ever massive enough tax evasion, I can pretend to join its dumbass cause to save me a couple bucks. Hippies need to be organized. Luckily for our agenda-pushers seated in office, organized hippies are oxymorons.

[Parkbandit]

If people boycotted this war by not paying taxes; in traditional boycotting numbers, war there would not be, Jedi.


Yea, because not paying taxes always works out.. because the IRS won't come after you.. ever.

http://chuckgallagher.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/155490951.jpg

[Mabus]

Christ, how many times are you going to make BigWorm repeat the same shit over and over that he doesn't support violent protests? Fucking hell.

I could just post until you become unstable and post defenses of him with profanity.

To late!
;)

[CrystalTears]

I swear a lot. Get over it. I'm not changing. Note my title. It doesn't change the fact that you're misunderstanding what he's saying.

[BigWorm]

I swear a lot. Get over it. I'm not changing. Note my title. It doesn't change the fact that you're misunderstanding what he's saying.

He's doing it intentionally.

My whole point is that if you honestly believe that your country is fighting an unjust war, extreme options start to look more reasonable. That by no means makes them right, but I don't think its nearly as cut and dry as Mabus would like.

[Stanley Burrell]

I swear a lot. Get over it. I'm not changing. Note my title. It doesn't change the fact that you're misunderstanding what he's saying.

"I don't have that bad of a mouth, do I?

Fuck, shit, ass, bitch, cunt, shoobeedadoowap."

Skibbadabeeboppa Christopher Reeves.

[CrystalTears]

I know what you're saying. Extreme actions for extreme measures. It doesn't make it right, but it's understandable where the mentality comes from.

[Parkbandit]

It's understandable?

I've never understood the need.

[Xaerve]

Miss Ismurii voting for McCain...

[BigWorm]

It's understandable?

I've never understood the need.

I guess we can add that to the long list of things you don't understand.

[Parkbandit]

I guess we can add that to the long list of things you don't understand.

I guess we'll add this to the long list of reasons why your Dad should have just falcon punched your mother right before you were born.

[Mabus]

I guess we can add that to the long list of things you don't understand.
I am sure most people can "understand" someone strapping a bomb on their body and blowing up a bus full of school children is committing an act of terrorism. People can "understand" blowing up a jetliner full of civilians is an act of terrorism. People can "understand" blowing up a federal building is also committing an act of terrorism. People can "understand" a group that is blowing up statues, police cars, MIT buildings, HHS buildings and robbing armored cars to support the efforts is also committing acts of terrorism.

Do not try to legitimize the terrorism as some type of necessary "war", while attempting to rationalize it with statements like "but I do not support it". It is offensive, illegal action by groups in an attempt to provoke political change.

The changes we end up with are lost property, lost lives and/or lost liberties because of these people.

If you cannot "understand" that then you have more problems then what any normal person should.

[Miss Ismurii]

Miss Ismurii voting for McCain...

I would say Ron Paul but it doesn't seem like an option. Whyy must you point out my vote?

[Mabus]

He's also an excellent speaker (like Winston Churchill).

Your "excellent speaker" in action. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8)

[Parkbandit]

Teleprompter, MIA.

[Tisket]

I'm a McCain supporter but, damn, I wish he would get his fucking teeth whitened. It'd knock ten years off his appearance.

/shallow

[Parkbandit]

I'm a McCain supporter but, damn, I wish he would get his fucking teeth whitened. It'd knock ten years off his appearance.

/shallow


Yea.. not sure why he sticks with the pearly yellows. They are so yellow, they are distracting.

[Warriorbird]

I find it hilarious that somebody would suggest banning somebody for bringing family members into pointless board discussions and then post this.


I guess we'll add this to the long list of reasons why your Dad should have just falcon punched your mother right before you were born.
-Parkbandit

Apart from that? I think this is going to be a close race. I don't feel as uncomfortable with the Democratic candidate as 2004 but I don't feel Obama is a perfect candidate either (extra economic stimulus? ugh).

I'm voting for wasting money on America rather than wasting money on places that ultimately don't care about us. Ah... the choices our governmental system makes us make.

[Parkbandit]

I find it hilarious that somebody would suggest banning somebody for bringing family members into pointless board discussions and then post this.



I find it hilarious that you are incapable of distinguishing between the two.

Not surprised though... as you've rarely shown any signs of intelligent thought.

[Gan]

My whole point is that if you honestly believe that your country is fighting an unjust war, extreme options start to look more reasonable. That by no means makes them right, but I don't think its nearly as cut and dry as Mabus would like.
I disagree with your point. Violence absent the battlefield is not reasonable. Its simply criminal. Some would even argue that violence is not reasonable in any sense, in any circumstance.


I know what you're saying. Extreme actions for extreme measures. It doesn't make it right, but it's understandable where the mentality comes from.
Agreed, that kind of mentality dysfunction is definately understood. Understood to be abnormal, dysfunctional, and criminal. It might be understood but it should not be sympathized with.


It's understandable?

I've never understood the need.
See above. (And I agree with the point you're making with this statement).


I am sure most people can "understand" someone strapping a bomb on their body and blowing up a bus full of school children is committing an act of terrorism. People can "understand" blowing up a jetliner full of civilians is an act of terrorism. People can "understand" blowing up a federal building is also committing an act of terrorism. People can "understand" a group that is blowing up statues, police cars, MIT buildings, HHS buildings and robbing armored cars to support the efforts is also committing acts of terrorism.

Do not try to legitimize the terrorism as some type of necessary "war", while attempting to rationalize it with statements like "but I do not support it". It is offensive, illegal action by groups in an attempt to provoke political change.

The changes we end up with are lost property, lost lives and/or lost liberties because of these people.

If you cannot "understand" that then you have more problems then what any normal person should.
Well said.

[Warriorbird]

So... offensive statements about somebody's mother and father are okay but not about somebody's children or the death of a sibling, PB? I remember you getting all annoyed about Keller criticizing your parenting.

How much did you know about the background of the person you posted that in regards to? Probably nothing.