McCain ... delusional

[Tsa`ah]

For an entire week the McCain/Palin ticket has gone on a scorched earth campaign that has fueled crowds with "up to the line" attacks on Obama's character.

What happens when Lewis (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/11/mccain-calls-on-obama-to-repudiate-%e2%80%9cshocking%e2%80%9d-lewis-comments/#more-24012) calls out the campaign's direction for what it really is?


“The notion that legitimate criticism of Senator Obama's record and positions could be compared to Governor George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked is unacceptable and has no place in this campaign. I am saddened that John Lewis, a man I've always admired, would make such a brazen and baseless attack on my character and the character of the thousands of hardworking Americans who come to our events to cheer for the kind of reform that will put America on the right track.

This has the potential to become comedy gold.

[Ravenstorm]

Another parallel is the rhetoric that led up to the murder of Martin Luther King (http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/the_unthinkable_1.php). The cries of communist have just been replaced with those of terrorist. The hate and fear and those who spur it on are pretty much the same though.

[Tisket]

Another parallel is the rhetoric that led up to the murder of Martin Luther King.

Yeah, cause we all know free speech kills.

[Tsa`ah]

Yeah, cause we all know free speech kills.

Speech, be it a civil right or the privilege of an extremist/dictator/what have you, often is the launch pad to great and/or terrible actions.

Words are the tool in which people are manipulated or moved into action. Be it a suicide bombing or an outpouring of support for a child stricken with cancer.

You choose to suggest this is an attack on free speech yet ignore instances where a person (say Fred Phelps) motivates a group (say his church) into an action (say protesting at the funerals of those men and women who offered up their lives at the behest of their country) that she/he is too cowardly to do alone.

Everyone has the right to free speech ... just as everyone has the responsibility to not use it as a tool to incite fear and hatred, to feed that hatred, to nurture the fear ... until it comes to a head.

We tend to focus on those that commit terrible acts. We'll focus on the music they listened to, the games they played, what they did on-line, what kind of person they were in school, what the neighbors thought, and what books they read. Aside from reading material, none of the aforementioned was at the heart of the act, rather what and who this person listened to/watched, read.

So yes, speech doesn't kill. On this you are correct ... but you left out what it does, and that's motivate. It's just that we give a pass to author of the words, unless said author is explicit as to what crime his/her listeners are to commit, because we hold this "freedom" as sacred ... and it's seemingly pretty damned hard to legislate personal responsibility.

[Mabus]

Another Obama supporter slaps down a race card.

Imagine that!

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

The Obama campaign released a counter-statement towards McCain on the issue.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/11/1534343.aspx


“Senator Obama does not believe that John McCain or his policy criticism is in any way comparable to George Wallace or his segregationist policies. But John Lewis was right to condemn some of the hateful rhetoric that John McCain himself personally rebuked just last night, as well as the baseless and profoundly irresponsible charges from his own running mate that the Democratic nominee for President of the United States ‘pals around with terrorists.’ As Barack Obama has said himself, the last thing we need from either party is the kind of angry, divisive rhetoric that tears us apart at a time of crisis when we desperately need to come together. That is the kind of campaign Senator Obama will continue to run in the weeks ahead,” said Obama-Biden spokesman Bill Burton.

[Tsa`ah]

Another Obama supporter slaps down a race card.

Imagine that!

OMG ... I just head the news.

http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/news/local/2001/01/30/143173/656717-220x165.jpg

Are you ok?

[Mabus]

The Obama campaign released a counter-statement towards McCain on the issue.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/11/1534343.aspx
He has "palled around" with a terrorist. Those of us that have studied this have proven it long ago.

I see his campaign is still lying about it. That speaks to his character.

[Tsa`ah]

You haven't proved shit ... except that you're just as delusion as McCain ... only McCain has an excuse.

[Mabus]

You haven't proved shit ...
You have proven that you believe Ayers was not a terrorist.

You have proven that you believe the USA and Israel are terrorist states.

You have proven you believe Obama can never lie, nor do anything wrong.

So I proved you to be "shit".

Which proves your statement wrong. I have proved you to be shit.

[Tsa`ah]

Just so we're both clear ... you have proven three times now that you are incapable of comprehending English as a written language .... and you've got nothing other than weak and unsubstantiated talking points from campaign news letters.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

He has "palled around" with a terrorist. Those of us that have studied this have proven it long ago.

I see his campaign is still lying about it. That speaks to his character.

Did republican Walter Annenburg "pal around with terrorists" too? What about republican Governor Jim Edgar who wrote a letter of recommendation for the Annenburg board after Ayers himself wrote the proposal? Is republican Arnold Weber also someone who "pals" around with terrorists? Are the people on the board of Trustees at the University of South Carolina all people who pal around with terrorists, including republican Governor Mark Sanford, since they gave Ayers the title of "Distinguished Scholar"? What about GOP chairman Andrew McKenna, he pals around with terrorists by being on the CPEF, right?

Obama and Ayers worked together in a professional way on a few different boards in the past. If YOU actually did the research, Mabus, you'd see most prominent figures in Chicago from BOTH sides of the Democrat/Republican divide have worked with Ayers before.. mostly regarding education and education reform. And it was NEVER an issue before the McCain campaign got desperate. I mean honestly, it's not like everyone in Chicago goes to hang at Bill Ayer's house drinking moonshine and building pipe bombs to go blow up the rest of the nation.

[Mabus]

prominent figures in Chicago
Nuff said.

[Mabus]

Just so we're both clear ...
If you are stating that you are a delusional idiot, and hater of the USA, we are clear.

If you cannot understand English that may be hard on you.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Nuff said.

Hahahahahaha.

Wow. Just wow.

[Mabus]

Hahahahahaha.

Wow. Just wow.
I you were having a conversation, and someone called a politician "a Chicago-style politician" what is the first thing that comes to your mind?

I know, to me, it means corruption, fraud and heavy-handed tactics.

Welcome to Obamatown.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I know, to me, it means corruption, fraud and heavy-handed tactics.

YEAH that's totally not a part of politics everywhere!

"Omg Obama is so bad because he's from Chicago!"

Geographical prejudice is hilarious, albeit extremely retarded.

:clap: Kudos to you for making me laugh so hard this morning though.

[Cephalopod]

I you were having a conversation, and someone called a politician "a Chicago-style politician" what is the first thing that comes to your mind?

I know, to me, it means corruption, fraud and heavy-handed tactics.

I think of buttery crust, generous amounts of cheese and chunky tomato sauce in a deep dish.

Why, exactly, does Chicago-style mean this to you, specifically? I'm just looking for a few examples that would be above and beyond what would be described as "New York style politician", "Detroit-style politician", "Springfield Missouri-style politician" or "Boise-style politician". Why does Chicago stand out and automatically mean 'corrupt' to you?

[Mabus]

Why does Chicago stand out and automatically mean 'corrupt' to you?
Because I study history.

Make no mistake, the rise of Obama was in large part to the Chicago Democrats taking the party back from the Clinton Democrats. Ignoring this is ignoring a major part of American politics, the internal squabbles within parties.

Just for you:
Political History of Chicago, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_history_of_Chicago)

One CNN reporter even reported Obama was "an avid student of Chicago-style politics" when he was challenging signatures on an opponents nominating forms (we was trying to stop an opponent by challenging whether they were lawfully registered voters on the petition...) when he was running for State Senate.

[crb]

I saw all sorts of violent right wing protests on TV during the DNC.... oh wait...

https://edgecastcdn.net/800034/www.perpetualkid.com/productimages/lg/AIRF-0683.jpg

So if McCain had done work with an abortion bomber or a church cross burner racist type in the past, it wouldn't be news?

Fuck that, the NYT ran a cover article about a rumor of staffers possibly being worried about the potential appearance of an affair almost 10 years ago.

Stop being so hypocritical, Obama lies about McCain all the time. McCain and especially Palin have been attacked on personal levels. And 527 groups on the left are outspending those on the right 4 to 1. That highground you think you're standing on is a soapbox in the middle of death valley.

[Tisket]

Speech, be it a civil right or the privilege of an extremist/dictator/what have you, often is the launch pad to great and/or terrible actions.

Words are the tool in which people are manipulated or moved into action. Be it a suicide bombing or an outpouring of support for a child stricken with cancer.

You choose to suggest this is an attack on free speech yet ignore instances where a person (say Fred Phelps) motivates a group (say his church) into an action (say protesting at the funerals of those men and women who offered up their lives at the behest of their country) that she/he is too cowardly to do alone.

Everyone has the right to free speech ... just as everyone has the responsibility to not use it as a tool to incite fear and hatred, to feed that hatred, to nurture the fear ... until it comes to a head.

We tend to focus on those that commit terrible acts. We'll focus on the music they listened to, the games they played, what they did on-line, what kind of person they were in school, what the neighbors thought, and what books they read. Aside from reading material, none of the aforementioned was at the heart of the act, rather what and who this person listened to/watched, read.

So yes, speech doesn't kill. On this you are correct ... but you left out what it does, and that's motivate. It's just that we give a pass to author of the words, unless said author is explicit as to what crime his/her listeners are to commit, because we hold this "freedom" as sacred ... and it's seemingly pretty damned hard to legislate personal responsibility.


Very well said. The issue I have is that we have no way of knowing if crazy, violent people who have done horrific things to other humans would have done so regardless of what's on their bookshelves or what they listen to but I believe so. Insane people will always find some inspiration for the actions they already want to commit. Just as sane, reasonable people won't turn into assassins if forced to listen to hate speech.

I just think that advocating censorship as a preventative measure is a slippery slope.

[Skeeter]

http://i35.tinypic.com/dztob9.jpg

[Sean of the Thread]

Skeet's drunk tonight.

[Skeeter]

maybe...

[Jayvn]

A black sheriff?!?!?

this is gonna be like blazing saddles 2

[Nieninque]

Nobody move or the Nigger gets it!

[Nieninque]

ITS A QUOTE FROM BLAZING SADDLES YOU FUCKING IGNORANT PEASANTS!

Fuck's sake.

[Gan]

Nobody move or the Nigger gets it!


ITS A QUOTE FROM BLAZING SADDLES YOU FUCKING IGNORANT PEASANTS!

Fuck's sake.

http://www.morethings.com/fan/blazing_saddles/cleavon_little-nigger_gets_it.jpg

Mel Brooks FTMFW.

Nien wins.

[Nieninque]

Just for the record, I hate the reputation function on these boards.

[Nieninque]

the Johnsons load their guns and point them at Bart. Bart then points his own pistol at his head]
Bart: [speaking in a low voice] Hold it! Next man makes a move, the nigger gets it!
Olson Johnson: Hold it, men. He's not bluffing.
Dr. Sam Johnson: Listen to him, men, he's just crazy enough to do it!
Bart: [low voice] Drop it! Or I swear I'll blow this nigger's head all over this town!
Bart: [now speaking in a higher voice] Oh, lo'dy, lo'd, he's desp'it! Do what he sayyyy, do what he sayyyy...
[the Johnsons drop their guns. Bart jams the gun into his neck and drags himself through the crowd and towards the station]
Harriett Van Johnson: Isn't anybody going to help that poor man?
Dr. Sam Johnson: Hush, Harriet, that's a sure way to get him killed!
Bart: [higher voice] Oooh! He'p me, he'p me! Somebody he'p me! He'p me! He'p me! He'p me!
Bart: [lower voice] Shut up!
[Bart places his hand over his own mouth, drags himself through the door into his office]
Bart: Ooh, baby, you are so talented! And they are so DUMB!

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Did people actually give you negative rep for that?

[Jorddyn]

How on earth do you even tell what your reputation is?

[Nieninque]

Did people actually give you negative rep for that?

yes

[Tsa`ah]

If you are stating that you are a delusional idiot, and hater of the USA, we are clear.

If you cannot understand English that may be hard on you.

Wow ... someone is fully on bent knee with a huge GOP cock in mouth while massaging the balls attached to it.

This is why I detest the new "conservative" mentality. Instead of attacking the issues, the idealism with facts ... you attack the person, the character with twists and, well, lies.

You attempt to make it acceptable to claim a person hates their country when that person presents facts that you refuse to accept, or fail to understand. You give a pass to those that make tools of divisive rhetoric, those that plant the seeds of hostility, racism, and fear .... all because you can't accept the political ideals of the other side.

That you would claim that I hate this country because I agree with the view of Edward Peck, the man that inspired Wright's sermon, the man that served the Nixon administration, served in the Carter Administration, served in the Reagan administration (where he co-authored this (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...ite:+18USC2331)), and served in the army, who said ...


"In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, they asked us — this is a Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism; I was the Deputy Director of the working group — they asked us to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities. […] After the task force concluded its work, Congress got into it, and you can google into U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331[3], and read the U.S. definition of terrorism. And one of them in here says — one of the terms, “international terrorism,” means “activities that,” I quote, “appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.” […] Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. Israel is another. And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder."

.. so in essence, I hate this country as much as Edward Peck does.

If that's all you've got ... terrorist, hates the USA ....get the fuck over yourself and start accepting the fact that you got on your knees to suck some losing dick ... dumb fuck.

[Mabus]

Wow ... someone is fully on bent knee with a huge GOP cock in mouth while massaging the balls attached to it.
I don't care what you do in your free time.

Might not want to refer to yourself as "someone", people might find you stranger then you actually...
...never mind.


You attempt to make it acceptable to claim a person hates their country when that person presents facts that you refuse to accept, or fail to understand.
I understand quite well.

You stated the USA and Israel were terrorist nations.

Maybe you are now saying you "love" terrorist nations? If it is just another Tsa'ah malfunction it could be your intent was lost, possibly while you had "a huge GOP cock in mouth".


You give a pass to those that make tools of divisive rhetoric,
No, I have stood against oBaBa from the first time I read about his past, so I have stood against a campaign with such rhetoric. That also means I have stood against one that also has ties to a domestic terrorist.

And the one using divisive rhetoric in the case? John Lewis.

You applauded Lewis for his remarks at the beginning of this thread:

What happens when Lewis (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/11/mccain-calls-on-obama-to-repudiate-%e2%80%9cshocking%e2%80%9d-lewis-comments/#more-24012) calls out the campaign's direction for what it really is?

But Lewis has since backtracked slightly, enough for the media to get a "feel good" statement, after having player the race card for oBaBa:

Georgia Rep. John Lewis said late Saturday that controversial remarks he made comparing the feeling at recent Republican rallies to those of segregationist George Wallace were misinterpreted.

The civil rights icon issued a statement Saturday evening which said a "careful review" of his remarks made earlier in the day "would reveal that I did not compare Sen. John McCain or Gov. Sarah Palin to George Wallace."

So Lewis uses divisive, race-baiting rhetoric, slightly backtracks, and the oBaBa campaign has a prepared release waiting. Imagine that.

This was a coordinated racist attack by Lewis and the oBaBa campaign. You ought to be ashamed for your support of it, but for someone that hates this country and calls it "a terrorist state" (paraphrasing) I can see why this is acceptable to you.

Enjoy your cock in the mouth.

[Tsa`ah]

That you sidestep the presented facts and create a "house of cards" series of arguments ... it's really exhausting. You are exhausting. You're like the little kid that "doesn't" break the rules by the letter ... yet knows he is breaking the rules in spirit.

So I'm just going to accept that you're going to argue that the sky isn't blue while standing under a blue sky and continue on.

Rest assured, come Nov 5 ... when a terrorist is elected into the White House, I'm going to break out the guns and explosives and go party with the rest of my "USA" hating friends.

[Mabus]

Let's look at your answers to the points raised:

.
Great job, feces!

[Parkbandit]

It's Shit4Brains.. Not Feces.

Get it right.

[DeV]

http://i35.tinypic.com/dztob9.jpgHahahaha, this is full of so much win.

[RichardCranium]

Speech, be it a civil right or the privilege of an extremist/dictator/what have you, often is the launch pad to great and/or terrible actions.

Words are the tool in which people are manipulated or moved into action. Be it a suicide bombing or an outpouring of support for a child stricken with cancer.

You choose to suggest this is an attack on free speech yet ignore instances where a person (say Fred Phelps) motivates a group (say his church) into an action (say protesting at the funerals of those men and women who offered up their lives at the behest of their country) that she/he is too cowardly to do alone.

Everyone has the right to free speech ... just as everyone has the responsibility to not use it as a tool to incite fear and hatred, to feed that hatred, to nurture the fear ... until it comes to a head.

We tend to focus on those that commit terrible acts. We'll focus on the music they listened to, the games they played, what they did on-line, what kind of person they were in school, what the neighbors thought, and what books they read. Aside from reading material, none of the aforementioned was at the heart of the act, rather what and who this person listened to/watched, read.

So yes, speech doesn't kill. On this you are correct ... but you left out what it does, and that's motivate. It's just that we give a pass to author of the words, unless said author is explicit as to what crime his/her listeners are to commit, because we hold this "freedom" as sacred ... and it's seemingly pretty damned hard to legislate personal responsibility.


Would this apply to someone such as Jeremiah Wright?

[Tsa`ah]

Let's look at your answers to the points raised:

Great job, feces!

Suicide party at Mabus'

[Mabus]

Suicide party at Mabus'
You first.
:)

[Tsa`ah]

Why would I commit suicide? I'm not arguing bullshit despite the reality of the situation.

Nov. 5

Durka durka jihad!

[Mabus]

Why would I commit suicide? I'm not arguing bullshit despite the reality of the situation.

Nov. 5

Durka durka jihad!
Why are you so certain that your candidate will win, feces?

[Tsa`ah]

I'm certain because my candidate didn't resort to a scorched earth campaign and then launch a "new" direction that was the flatline direction leading into the RNC.

And please stop ... your ignorance of hebrew is too damned funny. I think the last person that tried it was xtc.

Hmm ... that kind of makes sense now.

[CrystalTears]

And please stop ... your ignorance of hebrew is too damned funny. I think the last person that tried it was xtc.

Hmm ... that kind of makes sense now.
Oooh. I think you might be onto something there.