The GSoM Political Thread, Part III : The Debate

kinda weird

seeing a GSoM political thread with no comments

Thank you, Dubs.

by misterho on Oct 7, 2008 9:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

political thread with no comments

This global financial market crash has probably left everyone speechless?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 7, 2008 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hahaha

who remembers that line on the Daily show where he was comparing he life to like a dramatic sitcom or something and he said that every episode ended with her keeping the baby lol.

by Agent Zero on Oct 15, 2008 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Palin's IQ and looks for the people who say VPILF

I was surprised to read that she had 5 kids, she’s so repulsive I can’t imagine her husband getting it up 5 times?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 7, 2008 10:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

McCain: "That One..." (LOL!)

…oh and Obama’s $3 million Dollar projector at a Chicago Planetarium!

by Tony.psd on Oct 7, 2008 11:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Grandpa Simpson didn’t come across as too likable tonight. GOP spin is to take ownership of the “that one” line, play it up like it was a good stab. Sheesh, dehumanize much?

I’m wondering if McCain even wants to win at this point. He certainly isn’t acting like he’s got a clue what’s wrong with his campaign. Maybe he finally realizes that because of the mess his party has brought upon the world the next president’s job is going to be terrible and he’s trying to avoid having to do it. It would explain the stupid move like bringing an unqualified idiot like Palin aboard (and then somehow also attacking Obama’s lack of experience—irony?) and repeating the same tested and failed lines.

Unless he’s got something diebold-bolical up his sleeve, McCain’s done.

by jae on Oct 7, 2008 11:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unless he’s got something diebold-bolical up his sleeve, McCain’s done.

I hope the Palin pick was his last gasp, although I’d feel a lot better if he had picked someone like Huckabee just in case he pulls off a miracle win.
With this financial crisis brewing we are gonna need some one with intelligence, vision and flexibility at the top. I think Obama has thestuff to pull us thru difficult times ,he seems less likely to panic than McCain?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 8, 2008 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

2pac is alive!

by J2daZ on Oct 8, 2008 12:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I started wondering during the second part of that debate

whether McCain had to go to the bathroom. He sure seemed fidgety and didn’t hang around very long after the debate’s conclusion. It’s not unusual for old men to have prostate issues relating to their bladders.

I bet it’s a tough balance between drinking enough water so that your throat doesn’t dry up, and not drinking so much that you have to excuse yourself to pee in the middle of the debate.

by jakarta on Oct 8, 2008 8:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

maybe it's "THAT ONE..." ;-P

by Tony.psd on Oct 8, 2008 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

its a rap for mccain

obama is ahead in almost every poll

by Agent Zero on Oct 8, 2008 9:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

only cause we talked about this in my poly sci class today

obama being ahead in the polls isnt indicitive of much considering in 2000 gore was ahead in every single poll and won the popular vote. to really gauge how close this is you need to start looking at district voting blocks, which ive only done a little bit, and so far its pretty close district wise.

by kyzah on Oct 8, 2008 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nah.

It’s not that close, not right now anyway. It’s not just that Obama’s ahead, it’s the growing margins: 11 points nationally in today’s Gallup. And it doesn’t look any better for McCain when you glance at the electoral map: Obama’s running away and hiding in what were thought to be battleground states like CO, MN, MI, NH and PA. It’s increasingly difficult to see any kind of a path to 270 EVs for the Republicans. Obama’s now winning in 90.5% of Nate Silver’s simulations.

However you slice it — nationally, by by State, or by district — it looks bad for McCain. Historically, the polls tend not to change much this close to the election. In 2000 and 2004, the October polls showed razor-thin margins, and razor-thin margins are what we got. Obviously, something cataclysmic could still happen, and there’s always a possible “Bradley effect” (though most sources I’ve read suggest that this is either a myth or highly overrated). But there’s no question that Obama is the overwhelming favorite right now.

Or, you can just throw away the numbers and invoke Dylan: you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows…

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 8, 2008 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Bradley effect has been shown in a few elections, but it was never anything universal that affected all elections. It was largely anecdotal and probably candidate dependent. Also, the data for it are (almost?) all from more than a decade ago. More recently, polling data suggests that support for a black candidate in the polls, if anything underestimates the actual voter results.

by jae on Oct 8, 2008 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

the sad thing

is that it is even close: Iraq, the depression (forget repression) and a campaign worse than Kerry’s by McCain – and it’s still too close for comfort?!

sometimes I think that if Barak weren’t half black this election would be OVER, but just then I realize that’s essentially Edwards, and we would have had Hillary v. McCain now (or worse, Edwards and his little secret would have doomed us) … still, worry about ballot-box racism creeping in – no lead is safe imo

by hardcore on Oct 8, 2008 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

By any real measure, it’s not too close for comfort. It’s looking like a blowout. I think that 8 years of seeing a corrupt power grab and the shady dealings of Bush have made us gunshy.

No candidate this far ahead in the polls this late in the game has ever lost.

by jae on Oct 8, 2008 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No candidate this far ahead in the polls this late in the game has ever lost.

Well, I certainly hope you are as good at reading political stats as you are at basketball stats. You’ve made my day a lot better. Thanks

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 8, 2008 7:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

you forgot to mention palin!!!!!!

hellooooooooooo!? VP candidate that makes dan quayle look like a rhodes scholar anyone!?!? as much as i hate democracy and the pathetic ruse we call “voting”, i cannot get enough palin! not only does she pronounce nuclear “nuke-ya-lur”, despite the mounstains of sh*t bush received for doing just the same, she actually says “also,too”!!!!!!!!! she is the intellectual equivalent of magic johnson! i’ve met toddlers more capable of constructing a sentence! i almost wish the jesus freak wins just so tina fey will keep doing those impersonations…

I'm keen on the professional basketball club The Golden State Warriors. I don't fancy other clubs.

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Oct 11, 2008 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

she is the intellectual equivalent of magic johnson!

Come on now! Don’t slander Magic.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 11, 2008 7:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey I recognize that kanji

A little OT, Blazer fan checking out your site after the game tonight. I couldn’t help noticing not only that you have the kanji (Chinese character) for love, but that it’s right. I’m living in Japan, and it turns out they laugh at our interpretation of kanji (especially in the NBA) as much as we laugh at their ‘Engrish’

Sergio will explode this year as the best NBA player ever and will take revenge impregnating all Portland and Blazers with the "chocolate" word.

-Almart1

by einman77 on Oct 9, 2008 2:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

the polls about last nights debate

about how each candidate did in certain aspects of the debate, just about all had obama doing significantly better. combined with the national polls for voting which he is up by a nice margin now… you’re right it is not over, there is still a lot of time until we vote but it looks good right now.

by Agent Zero on Oct 8, 2008 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol

and the one hes winning is fox news lol

So I don't have a signature well these words would do! Who knew that upgrades can have downgrades too!

by 24k state fan since 87 on Oct 11, 2008 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fun McCain quote:

“Nailing down Senator Obama’s various tax proposals, is like nailing Jell-O to the wall.”

Kill it B-Rabbit with them flows!

by Tony.psd on Oct 8, 2008 12:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

it looks great for Obama right now with him being ahead in the polls

my biggest fear is that Obama will win the majority vote but lose the election. check out what chris rock said… very funny by the way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frO6AC6wAc0

by Agent Zero on Oct 8, 2008 2:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Highly unlikely.

You gotta read Nate Silver, man. Runaway “Rookie of the Year” in the political blogosphere.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Chances of McCain losing the popular vote while winning the electoral vote: 1.57 percent. It’s actually more likely that Obama will lose the popular vote and win the election (3.65 percent) though neither result is very likely.

Have faith in math!

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 8, 2008 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

p.s.

If you’re talking about a straight fix-job (Diebold, etc.), that’s another ball of wax. I kinda worry about that too. :-(

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 8, 2008 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

thank you man

i do have a lot of faith in math too by the way lol

by Agent Zero on Oct 15, 2008 11:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You left wing loonies............

MURS for President!!!!!!!

by jtoj on Oct 8, 2008 3:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You left wing loonies............

We’re solidly in the middle loonies, the damn country has just shifted toward 19th century ignorance.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 8, 2008 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hahahahahaha

again thanks for the laugh. The “we’re solidly in the middle” line never gets old coming from you.

by sam23 on Oct 8, 2008 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A strange sense of humor you have.

by jae on Oct 8, 2008 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

jae

do you really think you and Skeptic are “solidly in the middle”? Come on now

by sam23 on Oct 8, 2008 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice.

You’ve gone from spouting far right talking points (once in a blue moon actually hitting on something that related to reality) to attacking posters personally while adding nothing of substance to the discussion. Do you have something to say about politics, or are you more interested in sniping at the posters who have tried to educate you?

Comments like jtoj’s and yours take the dialogue here straight into the toilet. You’ve basically become the oldskool of the political threads, sam. Well done.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 9, 2008 3:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

how am I attacking people personally?

I just find it amusing that Skeptic thinks he is solidly in the center. Do YOU think skeptic is solidly in the center or that the rest of the country has shifted to the right? come on man, surely you realize how ridiculous that is. The country has shifted left pretty far left if anything, surely you can admit this. Its not like I’m saying something bad about Democrats or the country or anyone here, it just has. Both parties have gradually shifted left. And do you honestly believe that you or skeptic, as bay area liberals, are solidly in the center? Sleepy you have to admit its funny that he believes that. Maybe as jae points out on a scale of western democracies he’s close to the center, but still a bit left, but thats not what he said. On a national, or on a world distribution he is OBVIOUSLY far left. I’ve been saying the same kind of stuff the entire time Sleepy, it seems you are simply growing more and more frustrated. If you think a meaningful political thread is one where the opposing view sits out while you guys stroke each other I’ll leave you guys to it. Seriously now, youre saying that we arent adding anything of substance to this thread…..LOOK AT THE THREAD SLEEPY! Show me some substance in the thread…there isnt any.

by sam23 on Oct 9, 2008 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The shift to the right.

Again, you have VERY little idea what my political positions are. You know that I think that Obama is a much better candidate, that Palin is a joke and that Bush has been a disaster. You know that I believe that science is science and creationism isn’t science (and it isn’t). If that’s a ‘liberal’ position’, we’re in big, big trouble because it’s a-political. I’m anti-death penalty but voiced as a libertarian principle of small government as much as anything else. And if you’ve read carefully, you’ll see that I’ve spelled out a very, very middle ground position explaining more why there’s disagreement on abortion. What do I think about gun control (am I a gun owner?), about affirmative action (am I black? white? Korean?), do I own property? what tax bracket am I in and what do I think about my taxes? Maybe you can figure out something from my taste in entertainment, music and education background (some of which I’ve put forward here).

Be very, very careful in thinking you know much about me. I suspect you do not.

In my polically aware lifetime, there’s been a huge shift to the right in both parties. There has been a near total takeover of real conservativism by a religious fundamental minority that results in unqualified dolts like Palin being nominated in order to fire up a “base” that has nothing to do with classic conservativism. Republicans of 2 decades ago didn’t need to cater to Pat Robertsons. I don’t care about the methodologically flawed, completely relative ranking of Obama as the most liberal Senator. It’s meaningless without context. The redefinition and demonization of “liberal” by Faux News and Limbaugh (not to mention the total abuse of the terms socialism and communism by world class hypocritical dickheads like Michael "Savage") may make it seem hard to judge, but there’s dreadfully little similar to what a “liberal” was in the 60s and 70s. What passes for a “liberal” judge now would have been very centrist by the standards of 2 decades ago. Note that the “liberal” side of the SCOTUS contains a Republican nominee, Stevens, a judge who had a very moderate to conservative record as a federal judge. The swing vote, Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, would be considered far, far too “liberal” for a Republican to put forward today. It’s been two decades since the top tax brackets shifted downward from being 70% of income in the top tier to something in the 30s. The rally cry of the right against “higher taxes” seems totally unaware of what high taxes were. There’s not a Democrat in the world who comes up with anything close to a return to rate progressivitiy. We had a president (Clinton) who signed into law a bill substantially changing welfare policy such that it was no longer possible for it to be a life-long entitlement and could (and did) require return to work. And now we have a black Presidential contender who has talked about affirmative action needs to take into account socioeconomic realities rather than skin color.

Yes, as a whole, over the last couple of decades, much has shifted to the right. And we have shifted away from a point where we were much more in line with other Western Democracies in this manner.

No, I don’t think the Bay Area is really centrist, but it’s certainly more conservative in many ways than it was 20 years ago too. I don’t really know how some of the ridiculous shit coming out of the Berkeley City Council still gets out of it, but my guess is that it’s mostly apathy towards caring about who is elected to local office (anyone actually pay attention to who gets on the BART district management?) so an entrenched minority gets to control the door hanger ‘endorsements’ and then when we see “Code Pink” getting gifted a parking space, they piss off most of the residents of the city. But branding this as some extremist socialism as a fraud like Michael “Savage” does is a disservice to the English language and to history.

There are cases where this is not true in some social situations. That there’s even a debate about whether homosexuals should be equated equal rights under the law for issue of marriage or domestic partnerships wouldn’t have happened 2 decades ago. Even suggesting more government influence on healthcare policy would have been the kiss of death then too, and once upon a time, saying you’d ever smoked a joint killed your attempts to run for office, but as a whole, I don’t think that this means that the country has “moved towards the left”. And race relationships have improved in the last few decades much too, but I give more credit for this to break-dancing and the mainstreaming of Ice Cube than I do any political leanings. Eric B. is President did more to bring people together than President Clinton.

I don’t know how old you are, sam, but that you did a stint in the service and are now in college suggests that you can’t be that old. Early to mid 20s? My guess is that you’ve grown up during the re-definition of “liberal” and don’t actually remember what the term used to mean, that you lack some perspective on what the term means. There’s no shame in this, but that’s how it appears to me.

by jae on Oct 9, 2008 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, I don’t think the Bay Area is really centrist,

Sammy should ponder why the bay area is more liberal than he likes?
The weather here is superior to anywhere in the country so is it possible that smarter people come here and that smarter people become liberals? Maybe it’s education or childhood experience but it doesn’t seem like a bad thing to me? If Dumpwater Florida is full of conservative packed trailer parks. or Wasilla Alaska is teeming with Pentecostals is that good or is it a national failure of education and childrearing?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 9, 2008 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yea

that seems totally logical to me

by sam23 on Oct 9, 2008 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

socal

doesnt have better weather? they are a lot farther right than the bay, dude. Kinda screws your totally illogical and ridiculous argument doesnt it?

by sam23 on Oct 9, 2008 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know how old you are, sam, but that you did a stint in the service and are now in college suggests that you can’t be that old. Early to mid 20s? My guess is that you’ve grown up during the re-definition of "liberal" and don’t actually remember what the term used to mean, that you lack some perspective on what the term means. There’s no shame in this, but that’s how it appears to me.

Fair enough jae, youre probably right that I lack perspective on liberalism due to age. However, a couple things to point out-1.I only said that the country had shifted left, I didnt say that it was a result of the influence of politics, I totally agree its had as much or more to do with the influence of pop culture. I’d argue that your second to last paragraph holds plenty of evidence of this shift. I agree the Republicans didnt have to cater to the religious right 30+ years ago,but the Republicans WERE the religious right 30+ years ago. The fact that they still cater to this “base” is, imo, evidence of the shift as the rest of the party, and country and thus the republican party with it, have moved away from the right. On a technical note, bringing up Kennedy and comparing him to more recent Republican supreme court appointments is a bit ridiculous as Reagan put a whole lot less emphasis on his appointments than any president since. Kennedy isnt evidence of older more liberal Republican ways, he’s simply a mistake. Go back farther and youll be hard pressed to find more liberal judges.

by sam23 on Oct 9, 2008 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, once upon a time their was a conservative movement that was not the religious right. “The base” becoming synonymous with christian social conservatism was something that started to predominate under Reagan. The abandonment of fiscal conservatism (real reduction in government) happened at this time and we got budgets from Reagan and both Bushes that abandoned anything close ‘conservative’ to the point now that it stands out as mere insanity. I’m not sure that Bush II is actually sane. His policies across the board are probably the worst of any executive ever.

Culturally, the country seems to be much more open-minded. But in terms of political power, there has been a strong shift to the right over the last 20 years.

And I did go back further, sammy sam. Stevens was a Republican appointee. But to go back further than that Blackmun, author of Roe v. Wade, was a Nixon appointee as was Justice Burger who also voted for the decision. Earl Warren, author of Brown v. Board had been the Republican Governor of CA and the Rep. VP nominee with Dewey. The decisions of Republican nominees of the past are pretty much in line with the “liberal” judges of today.

It also seems like you’re too young to remember Kennedy’s confirmation and how that came about. Reagan didn’t seem to “put a whole lot less emphasis” on nominees as you’re suggesting. Rather Kennedy was put forward after Robert Bork, a ridiculously conservative appointee was rejected and his next nominee had admitted to once smoking a joint. Kennedy’s appointment came when it was clear that the judges that Reagan really wanted couldn’t get through. Alito and Roberts sailed through in comparison. Evidence of a move to the left? Yeah. Right.

I’m not sure what you mean by a “technical note”.

by jae on Oct 9, 2008 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

meh

Congressional opposition is much less willing to fillibuster nowadays, I’d certainly chalk the Bork rejection and Alito and Roberts approvals to that, not a move to the right. The religious right wasnt the base, youre right, because there wasnt really a name for it. My argument is that our move away from religion as a country is what created the religious right. The party lines have been redrawn, but that doesnt mean we’ve moved to the right. Just look at the shift in voting tendencies in south in the past half century. And doesnt the liberal spending of Reagan and Bush only drive home my point about a move to the left? Seems that aspect of your argument is a little self defeating, or am I reading that wrong?

by sam23 on Oct 10, 2008 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you’re chalking up Bork to unwillingness to fillibuster, how do you chalk up the other appointees that I mentioned? The “liberal” judges appointed by Republicans in the past? Glossing over that with a “meh” isn’t an argument. It’s a dismissal via ignorance.

There wasn’t a name for the religious right because they were not the force that they are today. Your notion that they were the un-named base is just simply not true. Once upon a time there was an actual voice of economic conservativism, not just the parody that has made the “lower taxes” cry into a religion of its own.

I wouldn’t call the spending of Reagan and Bush “liberal” in any political sense. The correct term for what they did is “insanely irresponsible.” What has happened is that conservative economics don’t exist anymore. But they haven’t been replaced by liberal economic policies. They’ve been been replaced by a money funnel towards a non-functional ‘trickle down’ hypothesis and huge defense spending while the actual party rhetoric has been dominated by fundamentalists who never had such a stranglehold on policy before.

Maybe a shift to the right isn’t the correct way of putting it. A shift towards insanity is probably better. We’re seeing the absolute worst administration in US history right now. I’d say I can’t figure how it can be worse, but then something surprises me. History will not treat King George kindly, nor should it.

by jae on Oct 10, 2008 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

huge defense spending

Ike tried to warn us, we’re just not listening

military-industrial-complex is 1950s speak for H-a-l-i-b-u-r-t-o-n

by hardcore on Oct 10, 2008 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We’re seeing the absolute worst administration in US history right now. I’d say I can’t figure how it can be worse, but then something surprises me. History will not treat King George kindly, nor should it.

By no means do I think he’s been a GOOD President, but I think youre mistaken about the how we will view this time period with another 30 years of perspective. Only time can settle that debate though, so dont bother with another long winded response.

by sam23 on Oct 10, 2008 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If there’s another president who has turned a budget surplus into the largest deficit ever, seen a major city disappear, launched a needless war and tanked the economy so thoroughly, who oversaw the U.S. becoming a nation that tortures people, seizing more power for the executive branch and alienating more of our allies, I’ll concede that there might be someone worse. But I can’t come up with one. Bush has f’d up everything he’s ever done in his life.

by jae on Oct 10, 2008 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

"Bush has f’d up everything he’s ever done in his life".

Maybe they can chisel that over the door of his library?
To be fair he had a lot of enablers, someone can’t go that wrong without help. Look at all the folks who voted for him?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 10, 2008 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hmm, ok - well, can you name one who was worse??

and why.

by hardcore on Oct 10, 2008 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i would've said pierce or jackson

but it seems that historians as reported by harpers would agree that it is W.
pierce, a northern democrat, helped expand slavery in the west and supported the confederacy…
jackson, “trail of tears”, in my mind committed huge atrocities against the native peoples esp in the south. apparently, killing indians will get you on the 20 dollar bill. jackson’s nickname was “jackass”, which is where the current dem’s get their party logo.
that said, deservedly, i’d put W in the above’s same category as presidents of gross negligence and misconduct…

the stop calling him "beans" movement

by pervisNeverNervous on Oct 11, 2008 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

both interesting

Jackson was also known for letting the B.U.S. (Bank of the U.S.) legislation expire, and the Bank went bankrupt not soon after (how ironic that Bush II is contemplating nationalizing Bank function now) … At least Jackson had defeated the British in New Orleans! He also was the one to widen suffrage among the electorate – so despite his obvious failings (such as you mentioned, not following the directives of the Marshall court in Worcester v. GA) at least he had done some positive things …

by hardcore on Oct 11, 2008 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

widen suffrage among the electorate

we’ve been widely suffering under Bush.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 11, 2008 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

suffering wildly?

where upon I must correct myself, until recently we haven’t had to feel the sting of our own incompetence – the rest of the world has tho

by hardcore on Oct 12, 2008 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

the rest of the world has tho

That’s what I meant, an inclusive “we”, the family of man

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 12, 2008 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

so Bush can take solace that he's in the BOTTOM THREE Presidents to ever hold office!

by hardcore on Oct 12, 2008 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bottom three in my lifetime.

Bush, Nixon and Reagan Check out the following chart. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html see how Reagan started the debt spiral with his huge tax givebacks to the rich, in some ways he was worse than bush cause he started the whole idea of tricking the masses into voting against there own best interest by diverting them with things like guns and religion.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 12, 2008 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You don’t actually know much about my politics, sammy. Dreadfully little.

Am I solidly in the middle? I’m left of center for the current US distribution, but on a global scale of western democracies, that’s pretty middle ground.

by jae on Oct 9, 2008 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually...

Back in in the days… Monie was in the middle!

by Tony.psd on Oct 9, 2008 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

true

I shouldnt have said you and Skeptic. Shoulda just left it at Skeptic. But do you think he’s solidly in the middle? I’d like to point out that he in no way said on a scale of western democracies (where I’d argue he’d still be slightly left of center) That leaves me to believe he means on a national or world scale where he is clearly far left, no? And I know you cant agree with him that the country has shifted right, can you?

by sam23 on Oct 9, 2008 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But do you think he’s solidly in the middle?

I’m right where I’ve been since retiring president Ike warned us about the dangers of the Military / industrial complex( and to not trust his VP). The middle ground seeks a sustainable steady increase in national wealth, social well being, and knowledge. The fringes at both extremes are reactionary to the common good and common sense .

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 9, 2008 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sammy Sam

If anything it’s laughable in this thread, it’s your attempt, from the far right fringe, to define an objective political “center.”

It’s been said that the so-called political “spectrum” is really more of a circle, with the extreme right (i.e. fascism) and the extreme left (say, communism, to the extent that it exists in or country) overlapping in many ways. As they say: “capitalism is exploitation of man by his fellow man; communism is the exact reverse.”

In my (rather subjective) book, the Skeptic’s views come off as completely “centrist” in a Buddist “middle-path” sense: sane, compassionate, peace-loving, and logically coherent. They’re basically the same humanist ideas espoused by Jesus and Buddha, and enshrined in our own Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Sadly, a lot of your rants in the two political threads — in their anger, fear, demonization of the other, and glorification of violence — come off much closer to the ideas of Machiavelli, or Pat Robertson, or Osama Bin Laden.

Which of these two belief systems is closer to the the American “average,” in a pure statistical sense, is probably up for debate, but really, who cares? 90% of Americans say they believe in God, a majority support the death penalty, and something like 40% don’t believe in evolution. As a nation, we’re a long, long way from being as enlightened as the Skeptic.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 11, 2008 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

not a circle

a horsshoe shape Sleepy

by sam23 on Oct 11, 2008 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

please

show me where I’ve glorified violence or demonized others.

by sam23 on Oct 11, 2008 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Petraeus sees value in talking to Taliban

Hi Sammy, I was just thinking of you when I read the above headline. Sounds like Obama has gained the ear of at least one general. Maybe there is such a thing as military intelligence after all?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 8, 2008 10:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

once again thank you for the laugh

I read the above headline

I just read the article and then looked up Petraeus’ exact words. They dont exactly match the headline as he in no way calls for ANY sort of negotiations without preconditions. In fact he’s very clear in saying that preconditions are necessary. Its hilarious because when I saw the online headline my I immediately wondered how long it would be before the liberal media would shape malleable little minds into believing this is some sort of Petraeus endorsement for Obama. Looks like it was about 5 minutes. I sure your idiotic buddy Olbermann will do the same thing on his show tomorrow, calling McCain a disgraceful liar in one breath and then spitting this sort of skewed garbage the next. Skeptic, try reading the article, not just the headline. Or better yet skip the article and its headline altogether and look up Petraeus’ words and try to understand what he’s actually saying rather than trying to make them fit your agenda.

by sam23 on Oct 8, 2008 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You mean Pietrus?

sorry, just had to….

by lightz0ut on Oct 8, 2008 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

by Tony.psd on Oct 8, 2008 11:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

bahahaha!!!!!

dat pic made me
spit out my capn crunch

keep it up, pilgrim

hahahaha

ANY QUESTIONS???

by KennySeagle on Oct 9, 2008 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is this low enough , Tony?

Haha, A couple of weeks ago you asked how low the market has to go to be a crash? Well it’s gone down faster and farther than most thought but hope might be on the way. I hadn’t bought any stocks for a couple of years but I couldn’t resist a little PFE today when it went below 15, so if there’s enough loonies like me waiting on the sidelines stocks might rise in spite of the news?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 10, 2008 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don’t worry. It can only fall another 8500 points or so. At that point, it won’t fall any farther.

by jae on Oct 10, 2008 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It can only fall another 8500 points or so

Are you sure? With this much downside momentum it might crash thru Zero and go negative?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 10, 2008 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

there are a lot of good companies cheap

right now. check out the motely fool (xml feed) or morningstar… they have some good articles pointing out what you want to look for in purchasing stock now.
i’ve been carefully buying this week, based on how much risk i want to stomach, in small increments. it will take awhile (> a year) but you could make some money on strong companies who are just being sold b/c banks need liquidity not b/c they are bad/weak companies.

the stop calling him "beans" movement

by pervisNeverNervous on Oct 10, 2008 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fixed News

Or what my man Keith Olbermann also calls them: Fox Noise, polled their viewers on who won the debate. The result: 88% McCain – 12% Obama !!!
Fox News Channel is either pro-GOP and made up these numbers or their viewers are brainwashed into their right wing propoganda.
I thought the turning point of the debate was early on when the black dude asked the question about how the bailout plan will effect Americans. McCain condescendingly corrected him and said it was a “rescue” and hardly talked to him directly. When it was Obama’s turn, Barack talked directly to him and broke down the financial situation clearly and understandably.
I’m still weary about the election. Even though the polls show Obama with a huge lead in the popular and electoral vote, I have a feeling of another 2000 election debacle. Like what Chris Rock said: “You won the election, sorry you lost…”

by SuperFly on Oct 9, 2008 12:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

b/c oberman doesn't have his own adgenda...

i watched him after the debate and they were running the same poll with nearly the same results (albeit obama was winning, of course, nationally, the polls we much closer with obama winning by around a 10 point margin)… the point here is that both sides have their mules that carry the message to the masses. gathering news from a variety of sources, boiling them down to the substance is the only way to get the real unbiased facts…

the stop calling him "beans" movement

by pervisNeverNervous on Oct 10, 2008 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

thank you

people love to hate Fox News, when in reality its only about as biased as CNN, but not even close to MSNBC. Youre correct that none of them, including Fox, are a great source on their own, but if we’re gonna start throwing stones at Fox for not being “fair and balanced” its a bit hypocritical not to throw them back at CNN, MSNBC, and almost every major newspaper with their liberal agendas too.

by sam23 on Oct 10, 2008 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

almost every major newspaper with their liberal agendas too

The only agenda “liberal” newspapers have is to free of rightwing oppression and ignorance? Agendas imply a plan to profit from their viewpoints but the things the enlightened papers promote are not profit oriented positions? For instance promoting a war enables war profiteers , promoting peace only enables peace, there are no peace profiteers. There is a monetary benefit to peace but it’s hard for the instigator to monopolize it. There are not peace oriented counterparts of Blackwater , the bounty of peace goes to a wide swath of humanity.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 10, 2008 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

having an agenda

does not imply a plan for monetary profit.

by sam23 on Oct 11, 2008 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Blackwater, Haliburton – Sam, do you REFUSE to at least LOOK at what is going on? Is it too much work? Do you need to be led by the nose? Or, do you know and are ignoring the obvious?

I can’t decide which is worse.

by hardcore on Oct 11, 2008 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

do you know and are ignoring the obvious?

Haha, It’s his “agenda”.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 11, 2008 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

dude

i have NEVER defended the privatization in the war or the contracts given to haliburton and blackwater. re-read that whole exchange.

by sam23 on Oct 11, 2008 10:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

then, "dude"

how do you rationalize supporting Bush/Cheney/McCain? McCain wants to stay in Iraq for another 100 years “if necessary” to “fix” a problem that we created, we can’t fix, and we’re only making worse by staying longer.

Cheney & Co. are making mint off of this war – I hope there’s an investigation into that. Since you’re not defending those contracts you would support that, right?

Iraq was not tied to 9-11, there were no WMDs (including nukes) found in Iraq despite Rumsfeld’s public claim that we KNEW where they were, and Al-Q was not in Iraq before we came, but we created the opportunity for them to rise there – and we aren’t “winning” anything currently, we are following the Powell doctrine in some central areas (even if the Bush admin wants to call it a "surge") but we don’t control Iraq. You and I don’t even see what’s going on there – because the media (liberal or not) is not allowed to send back video of real conditions on the ground. But you want McCain to lead us for another term, or century, of this boondogle?

The rest of the Middle East, hell the world, hasn’t exactly become more enamored with the US oil-grab either – if anything we hastened Iran’s desire to obtain nukes through our cowboy diplomacy and now are stuck in an Alamo and emboldened popular resistance to the US everywhere west from Central Asia …

And we’re not spreading democracy: you don’t spread democracy at the point of a bayonet, it needs to evolve from within, just like it did here …

As far as telling other people to re-read, look in the mirror.

by hardcore on Oct 12, 2008 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ok fixed news for you

go watch that and you and bill o reilly and sean hannit can have some fun talking ignorance
GO OLBERMANN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by montadaboss on Oct 12, 2008 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The other 2 guys to vote for...

by Tony.psd on Oct 9, 2008 12:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm hoping

McCain will die hard in this election…-drums-
Sorry for the corny one-liner. The poster left that one wide open….

by SuperFly on Oct 9, 2008 12:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I dunno

I was kinda hoping he would die easy…

Fortunately: John McClane >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John McCain.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 9, 2008 7:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was kinda hoping he would die easy…

He deserves to severely suffer for exposing this country to the remotest possibility that Sarah Palin and her “family values” could ever end up in the white house. Many years ago I thought McCain had integrity but no more, He’s sold his soul to the same group that sold us Bush/Cheney

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 9, 2008 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i dunno

should i say anything
…but once (about week ago) i saw Palin on youtube and she said that this dude MC Cain is a Maverick -you know -since ‘07 i really dislike Mavericks -i like when they got their asses kicked
-though -i’ve got to admit that MC Cain is pretty badass nickname -i bet he’s got some pretty cool rhymes

build a team & destroy the roof and

Sign Tim Hudson now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by nuttinbutnet

by Lat We N Trash on Oct 9, 2008 2:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

B U S H I D O A S I D E

a haiku on the polity

ken-ny sea-gle say

re-de-fine ur so call-ed

so-cial con-tract now

ANY QUESTIONS???

by KennySeagle on Oct 9, 2008 9:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Terrorists!

Well, now that the Bush admin has decided to drop the terrorist designation from North Korea, could we get on to the important job of addressing the Ayers issue?

by hardcore on Oct 11, 2008 4:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

now that the Bush admin has decided to drop the terrorist designation from North Korea,

Probably too pigged out from gorging on Iraq to move that far? and the guaranteed contracts are gonna be under scrutiny in the next escapade so the payoff woulda been less sure.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 11, 2008 8:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

kim jong il is pajama man

by montadaboss on Oct 12, 2008 8:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Real good news

   Check it out, http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20081013/cm_thenation/45371832_1
    conservatives for Obama, now we’ll see if Sammy gets it?
       BTW my call of a market bottom friday was right on, glad to see I’ve still got it!

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 13, 2008 3:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

as deliciously written as it is (and it is), and no matter who espouses it (even conservative elephants)

some folks simply refuse to educate themselves when the info doesn’t fit their predispositions

it’s easier for them to switch topics and turn the page and hope it all just somehow goes away …

by hardcore on Oct 13, 2008 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

now we’ll see if Sammy gets it?

This shows everything that is wrong with the left and much of the bay area. Simply because we disagree politically I “dont get it”? Define ignorance.

by sam23 on Oct 13, 2008 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"get it?"

amazing, you did EXACTLY what I predicted – tried to avoid the information and change the topic

it’s not left or right Sam, it’s being ignorant – as you say – of the FACTS and arguments on both or multiple sides of any issue … what’s worse than ignorant? self-imposed ignorance once you are presented with information. …

by hardcore on Oct 13, 2008 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

so you think

all McCain backers are ignorant? any enlightened person will vote for Obama? Such beliefs are flat out ignorant.

by sam23 on Oct 13, 2008 9:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I do think it’s ignorant to believe that we can trust someone to manage the economy who, by and large promised us more of the same in making Bush’s failed policies permanent.

I believe that thinking that the judgment of someone who would take a totally unqualified dolt like Sarah Palin and put her in a position where she could easily become president is judgment that it fatally flawed. Believing that an executive who would make such a significant blunder in what is to date his most important decision has not shown critically poor judgment requires something. Perhaps it’s not ignorance, but it’s certainly something.

It may not be ignorance, but I think it’s fear and anxiety more than anything else that motivates those who still support McCain in light of such serious, serious flaws in the man’s proposals and judgment. The antithesis is not necessarily supporting Obama out of “enlightenment” but it’s the recognition that McCain represents the continuation of a disaster coupled with decisions about his own campaign that do far more than question his judgment as an executive.

by jae on Oct 13, 2008 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

of course not all McCain backers are ignorant - never said they were

but the ones who refuse to heed several opportunities to examine evidence brought readily to them are denying themselves a chance to evaluate the evidence and educate themselves

you (again) are trying to (1) put words in my mouth, (2) avoid the information presented, and (3) change the argument posed – you are nothing if not consistent

Sam23, you would be well within your right to consider some of us, myself particularly, arrogant proponents of our position and speaking only for myself – guilty before charged. What differentiates us is while I pursued your argument and went in search of information about the organizations you mentioned on another thread, you ignore substantive comments, refuse to acknowledge information contrary to your view, and try to redirect rather than refute information. I respect your resilience, but mourn the lack of inquiry you regularly demonstrate.

by hardcore on Oct 13, 2008 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol.

stop, guy. You’re making too much sense, which means sam will ignore you and troll some more. Honestly, he’s not a good troll but you guys eat it up like candy.

by Amoc on Oct 14, 2008 3:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

he’s not a good troll but you guys eat it up like candy.

Haha, That sounds like a “good” troll, not that there’s anything good about being annoying but he does it without being blatantly offensive which takes some skill.
You think he’s a paid McCain operative? or just a little brother type who gets off on the negative response?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 14, 2008 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ok

fair enough, but tell me what I refuse to acknowledgeor what I ignore. I’m more than willing to take on any argument and have made several concessions throughout the course of this debate. You say I’m avoiding things, but I dont know what they are. Tell me specifically what they are and I’m more than happy to confront them. Amoc, I see youre back with your wonderful, insightful contributions.

by sam23 on Oct 15, 2008 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

at that juncture, Buckley’s view.
previously, Iraq – McCain …
previously … … … … …

it doesn’t matter, let’s agree that regardless of who wins we wish them a productive & healthy term …

I never thanked you for the compliment on the abortion thread, thanks for that

by hardcore on Oct 15, 2008 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bunkley's view

I dont really have anything to say about it, I just disagree with him. Big deal. Next? Iraq, thats rather vague. what exactly? I think we pretty much covered most of the Iraq issues and got down to our fundamental differences of opinion or belief. And yes if Obama wins, which looks almost certain, I’ll do my best to get behind him and his administration. At least until 2012

by sam23 on Oct 15, 2008 8:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Simply because we disagree politically I "dont get it"? Define ignorance

Sammy, This is big. He’s the son of william fuckin F buckley. If he’s anti palin you gotta believe there’s a very good reason.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 13, 2008 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If he’s anti palin you gotta believe there’s a very good reason.

This is the key point when considering McCain’s judgment and even his integrity.
If hd’s picked Ridge, Rice,Huckabee, or even Lieberman we’d not be having this discussion.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 14, 2008 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

or even Lieberman

- that would have taken some stones, but might have been the magic choice to steal the election

by hardcore on Oct 14, 2008 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

lieberman and stones

two things that don’t go together…

the stop calling him "beans" movement

by pervisNeverNervous on Oct 14, 2008 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

the magic choice to steal the election

That would have been what a real “maverick” that wants to truly reach out to both sides would have done.
I think McCain got some very bad advice from a very cynical campaign manager or staff when he decided to play the wacko religious card and I hope it costs him dearly for taking it.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 14, 2008 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Obama the "magic man"

check out this article in WSJ, lays it out really well…. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122360618747721991.html

by warriorbum on Oct 13, 2008 5:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

check out this article in WSJ

Looks like the WSJ doesn’t get it either! They can’t see the link between deregulation and the ongoing credit meltdown? or the difference between lowering the tax on small business while increasing the tax on the wealthy? or the difference between healthy gun ownership policies versus more weapons in unstable hands? Guess those facts don’t fit their agenda.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 13, 2008 8:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

stop the bs

obama is smart. hes not the coolest guy though. hes smart kinda like a proffessor but not this figure who is black nation or is “your homeboy” mccain was a party animal so was bush
if u wanna party go with bush and mccain and do your studying with obama

by montadaboss on Oct 13, 2008 8:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Damn! Look what you did!

by Tony.psd on Oct 14, 2008 8:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

So it seems that the Obama/Osama connection discussed in the previous incarnation of this thread is rearing its ugly head. While it had been tossed out by the nutcases back through the primaries (crying out that Obama is a terrorist at rallies, not particularly amusing signs of “say no to Osama, Obama…”) it now appears that the fringe have moved closer to the Republican mainstream. The Sac County Republican party website posted an image of Obama and Osama with the text “the only difference between Obama and Osama is BS. Waterboard Barack Obama”. Sac Bee report. I guess the Sac County Republicans are the fringe element. (Sigh.)

No, McCain hasn’t said it. But yes, it does appear that this is the direction that many on the right want to drag the election discourse. The calls that this is somehow some imaginary creation of the left is pretty laughable.

Meanwhile, as Palin still makes the claim that Obama is ‘palling around with terrorists’ (and yes, she’s making it plural implying something beyond Ayers), it appears that Ayers received much of his funding from Annenberg Foundation, a fund established by former GOP ambassador to the UK Walter Annenberg and his wife (now widow) Leonore to the tune of $50million. Annenberg was a major donor to Apparently, the unrepentant terrorist did not scare off the same folk who gave to the campaigns of Rick Santorum, Strom Thurmond, Mitt Romney and (cough, cough) John McCain . McCain appears to value Annenberg support enough to have issued a press release announcing the support. If we are to believe that Obama’s association with Ayers calls into question his judgment, what are we to think of the Annenbergs? And what are we to think of McCain, who now accepts the endorsement of someone who has supported an unrepentant terrorist? (What we should think is that this ‘link to terrorists’ meme is a whole lot of BS, that using it to question Obama’s judgment without similarly making it question McCain’s judgment requires a suspension of reason and an enormous amount of hypocrisy.

Very curious how sam fits this into his worldview and arguments, or is he ready to abandon the farce of this ‘connection’ meaning anything.

by jae on Oct 15, 2008 10:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

i'd like to know

if McCain knew about Annenberg’s ties to terrorism. Or if Annenberg knew exactly who and what he was funding. If so, yea its fair game. However, we KNOW Obama knew what Ayers had done and Ayers has STILL not apologized for the deaths and attacks he is responsible for. As Ayers victim John Murtagh said “I dont hold Obama responsible for what happened to my family four decades ago, but he has a relationship with Bill Ayers and his wife that goes back 20 years…. Whats troubling is that Ayers is a neighbor down the block that did something 40 years ago. It is a working relationship it has been for two decades …he has to answer how he can be associated, how he can choose as a mentor, a man who engaged in violent acts against this country in the ’70’s and advocates violence today.”
-As for the plurality in Palin’s remarks, its pretty simple jae and I’m surprised you havent figured this out, as well informed as you claim to be. Ayers’ wife is also an unrepentant terrorist, did you really miss that?

by sam23 on Oct 15, 2008 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, we don’t know what Obama knew about Ayers when. It might be an interesting question, but it appears for the most part, it’s only interesting to a few who are more searching for ways to sew fear than to actually address something that matters. We do know that Obama has denounced Ayers’s past actions. Annenberg must have been a pretty stupid billionaire to entrust $50 million to Ayers and know nothing about him. I don’t know what Annenberg knew about Ayers, but Ayers’s background was never a secret. It was also, apparently, never much of a concern of any of the many groups (such “left wing radical” organizations like Continental Bank and Ameritech [aka AT&T]) with whom he had substantial dealings through charitable avenues. If Obama’s judgment was flawed for knowingly associating with a known former terrorist, he’s in wide, wide company. The outrage at Ayers is a recent manufactured one.

Palin’s actual line has been that “he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.” That seems to imply that Obama is presently (albeit possible that the he’s was a contraction of he was, this seems improbable that it was what she was trying to suggest) making the company of multiple terrorists in friendly capacity. It’s positively misleading. Your argument was that Bill Ayers helped launch his career (in the early to mid 90s, which, for what it’s worth, isn’t 20 years ago as Murtagh attests, though Murtagh seems to be high on hyperbole in general so I’ll excuse his crappy math) and served on a board with him. They did work together for a period from the mid 90s through 2001. They went to board meetings together multiple times a year. We don’t, as Murtagh asserts, have any reason to view Ayers as Obama’s “mentor”. That’s all a pretty loose definition of “palling around” and doesn’t seem to include his wife. Yes, I know that his wife worked at the same law firm as Michele Obama. There’s zero evidence that they even knew each other [it’s a huge firm] let alone ‘palled around." It’s a pretty steep step to take that to involve the pluralizing of his “palling around”. It’s pure scare tactics from a campaign that seems to offer very little else.

This call that Obama must answer really just smells of false outrage, outrage that has been manufactured as a smear tactic. I’m curious what Obama knew about Ayers’s background, but I do not believe it calls into question his judgment that he engaged in activities that weren’t in the slightest related to Ayers’s history a couple of decades later, certainly no more than it makes McCain’s judgment fatally flawed to remain friends with convicted conspirator G. Gordon Liddy, a man who admitted to plotting the death of others, of plotting to firebomb a building, and a man who was rightly convicted of criminal activities involved in the election of the highest office in the land. And it’s certainly far, far, far less damning of his judgment than McCain picking an unqualified moron as his VP. I do not believe that you are logically looking at this and weighing Obama’s perceived lapses of judgment as being greater. I believe you’re apologetically looking for reason to smear where none really exists and must greatly contort logic and equivalence to maintain such a position while forgiving McCain’s lapses without significantly twisting beyond the realm of logic and reality.

by jae on Oct 15, 2008 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually if you had bothered to listen to Murtagh you would see that the campaign launch wasnt where the Obama-Ayers association began. They were friendly long before that. And as Murtagh points out, a politician doesnt throw campaign launch parties at the houses of strangers, those they have small associations with, or “a guy down the block”, they have such events at the homes of close friends. You made a mistake is trying to attack Palin for saying terrorists when it was true,and now youre trying to skip over it or change the subject. Its the exact same thing youre constantly accusing me of jae. Again Liddy never physically harmed anyone, nor did he actually attempt to. I’d be much much more concerned about the relationship, and likely wouldnt be a McCain supporter if he had and McCain still kept his ties to him. Its still concerning but not nearly to the degree of Ayers. Ayers and his wife are responsible for the deaths of at least 4 people and attempted to kill many more. Again (I dont know how many times I have to say this) I dont like the Palin pick. However, her inability to deal with the media makes her neither unqualified or a moron. Obama denounces Ayers’ past actions only under scrutiny when he had no other feasible choice if he wanted to survive politically. And again, Ayers himself has never denounced those actions or apologized, so why would Obama feel the need to associate with him at all in the first place? Fact: Ayers is a terrorist. Fact:His wife is a terrorist. Fact: Obama has close ties to the Ayers family. But its a stretch to say he’s palling around with unrepentant terrorists? come on now, it seems youre simply trying to dismiss this as a smear in an attempt to avoid it.

by sam23 on Oct 15, 2008 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A longer post was somehow erased.

I have not tried to skip over anything, Sammy. It’s beneath you to accuse me of such. My posts are lengthy and detailed and very much try to address many things. It requires that you suspend any semblance of honesty to deny this. If something is not adequately addressed, you can ask me to elaborate, but you’re being untruthful to say that I’m avoiding something.

I suspect you have no experience with political fundraisers, else you’d not make the statements you do. While it’s uncommon to host a fundraiser for someone you have not met, close friendship not by any means a prerequisite. I have personally been to fundraisers hosted at friends homes for politicians with whom they’ve had either no or very, very little personal interaction. I don’t know what sort of relationship Ayers and Obama had, but Murtagh’s inference that they must have been friends is a false one.

Murtagh’s contention that they have known each other 20 years is speculative based on M. Obama and Dohrn working at the same law firm, a firm that employs 500+ people. It’s speculation, not at all a given.

You have a very, very liberal usage of the word fact. It is not a “fact” that Ayers is a terrorist. It is truth that he was a terrorist. You make no attempt as such a distinction, though this distinction is real.

I am curious which incident you cite where Ayers was responsible for anyone’s death. I am not aware of it. I am also not aware that in any of his actions he intended to inflict harm on individuals. What I know of what he did was to inflict property damage, nothing more. I could be mistaken, but I require some reference from you before I take your assertions to be more than merely your opinion. I have considerable disagreement with you on definitions of words like fact, where I tend to use a more common definition and as such, your assertion of “facts” tends to leave something to be desired.

I regard Palin’s inability to answer basic questions as an indication that she is unfit to be executive of the U.S. I regard her ready lapses into lies (yes, lies) as indication that she is either stupid or incompetent or ignorant or some combination of the three and I regard the grossly irresponsible decision of McCain to put her in a place where she could be president to indicate that he has fatally flawed judgment. If Obama and Ayers were friends (an if) that does not put me in danger. Palin in the White house is far, far more dangerous.

by jae on Oct 15, 2008 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You have a very, very liberal usage of the word fact. It is not a "fact" that Ayers is a terrorist. It is truth that he was a terrorist. You make no attempt as such a distinction, though this distinction is real.

what exactly makes you no longer a terrorist? denouncing your despicable actions or saying you would never take part in that kind of violence again? He hasnt done that.

by sam23 on Oct 15, 2008 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What makes someone no longer a terrorist? That’s a subjective question. In some views it may be enough to no longer engage in the activities for a significant period of time and by (almost?) all accounts dedicating his life to positive non-violent endeavors. You may disagree with this, but it’s a subjective point either way. What you have presented is not, as you put it, a fact. It’s your opinion.

by jae on Oct 15, 2008 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

its like, what makes you no longer a murderer? Once you murder someone theres not really any going back unless you take EXTREME measures to repent, and pay for your actions.

by sam23 on Oct 16, 2008 2:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And extreme, even in all-caps, is part of your subjective view. I suspect that for murder, where across human cultures you’ll see less definition in the act, you’ll also see less of a willingness to forgive. Clearly, this is not the case with Ayers as many people seem to view him as somehow being reformed, even if he doesn’t meet your personal requirements.

Your definition of “pay for your actions” is also subjective. I encourage you to think carefully about where you present absolutes when no such absolutes exist. That style of thinking does not seem to be one you are predisposed to do.

Are you aware of what the word ‘subjective’ means?

by jae on Oct 16, 2008 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ah, your tried and true tactic of “do you know what ________ means” has returned. I was almost starting to miss it. So if you murder someone you arent always considered a murderer?

by sam23 on Oct 16, 2008 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It returns because I am once again not satisfied that you know what the words you use actually mean.

Most people would probably consider someone who has murdered to always be a murderer. This does not mean that this is a general case for all other activities. If you have gone to kindergarten, you are not always considered a kindergartener.

by jae on Oct 17, 2008 7:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

a murderer.

    It was a long time ago but I can’t recall Ayres murdering anyone?
  I don’t think that was his agenda, he was an antiwar activist.
         Does anyone consider soldiers who kill the enemy to be murderers? Why does government sanction change the rules?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 17, 2008 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

first of all, you totally misinterpreted that exchange. I ws calling Ayers a terrorist not a murderer. But yes, Ayer’s terrorist organization DID kill people. It cant be proven that he personally killed anyone, but then it cant be proven that Bin Laden has personally killed anyone either.

As for the second part, do you really want to get into this? Are you really loony enough to not see the difference or are you simply trying to provoke me?

by sam23 on Oct 18, 2008 12:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

are you simply trying to provoke me?

Why would I want to do that? I’m all about cooperation not confrontation. Just trying to point out that what is right or wrong often depends on who’s in charge. The murders of iraqi civilians by US soldiers seems to be ok by juries here in the US but try them over there where the crime was committed and the results would be different.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 18, 2008 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

no

thats simply not true. What murders of Iraqi civilians are you speaking of specifically where the soldiers or marines were tried and found innocent here, but are guilty of murder?

by sam23 on Oct 19, 2008 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ah

so being a terrorist is more similar to being a kindergartener than a terrorist. i get it.

by sam23 on Oct 18, 2008 12:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, quite clearly you do not get it, sam.

by jae on Oct 18, 2008 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

so being a terrorist is more similar to being a kindergartener than a terrorist. i get it.

If that’’s what you’re saying, you’re entitled to that. I never said anything at all to that end.

by jae on Oct 18, 2008 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

it sure is

what you imply

by sam23 on Oct 19, 2008 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, sam. It is NOT what I imply. It is either what you misread or what you now chose to misrepresent in what I said.

I realize that you’ve got some limited critical thinking skills, that you are painfully concrete in your ability to reason and your ability to see that other people are not so concrete and narrow in their thinking. I realize that you’re desperate to believe all your preconceived notions. I realize that you’re not terribly gifted with prose, either in creating it or, it appears, comprehending what others wrote. I realize that you live in a world that is far, far more black and white than the real world actually is, but I never, ever, ever said that terrorism is more like kindergarten. That, if it is what you got out of it, only indicates that your hopelessly lost and will believe what you want to believe in absence of anything else. But I also suspect that you don’t really believe that I was trying to say that terrorism is like kindergarten. I suspect that, at some honest level within you, you realize that there is subjectivity in the labels and realize that my point wasn’t about how similar to kindergarten terrorism is, but about how all such labels carry some subjectivity in their permanence. I suspect you are either trolling or trying to hide.

But just in case you actually were confused and are not merely a troll, let me make this explicit for you. I was pointing out that there are things that are not absolutes. Something that someone has done need not always mark that person as a forever. You seemed to be suggesting that if someone commits an act of terrorism, he is, forever, a terrorist. That is a matter of opinion. And I suspect that this opinion is not universal across all activities. I suspect that there are some activities that more people will use to label a person forever (e.g. murder, rape) and some that are quite clearly temporary related to the activity only while someone is in the activity (e.g. being a kindergartener). And these poles of a continuum are not the only possibilities, but rather extremes. Different people will regard different labels in permanence to different degrees and will utilize different criteria for affixing or removing the labels. (e.g. Iis McCain an adulterer because he committed adultery when married to his first wife?)

I doubt very much that other readers were actually confused about this or really believed that I was implying terrorism was like kindergarten. I significantly question whether you were actually confused by this as well or were merely trying, with utter desperation, to mock a position that I didn’t actually take. If so, you really ought to be ashamed of yourself, not because you were using it to insult me. Frankly what you think of me is immaterial as you do know so very, very little about me. You should feel shame because you are wasting your brain, choosing to avoid thinking in favor of holding to your prejudices.

It is very, very sad that you live in such a simple world, sammy. The real world is significantly more complex. You ought to try taking a look at it some day.

by jae on Oct 19, 2008 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I suspect that there are some activities that more people will use to label a person forever (e.g. murder, rape) and some that are quite clearly temporary related to the activity only while someone is in the activity (e.g. being a kindergartener).

but you regard terrorist acts falling closer to kindergarten than to rape or murder? Need I remind you that people were MURDERED by his terroist actions. Ayers should be regarded as a terrorist at least until he repents or pays his debt to society. He’s dont neither. Whats sad is that you conitnually dismiss oposing views as ignorant and simplistic jae. Arguing that I know very little about you while you attack me personally is incredibly ignorant and hypocritical, but, to your credit, is at least consistent with what youve done throughout the entirety of these threads. My views have been shaped through experiences and interactions that you know nothing about, chalking them up to ignorance or prejudices reveals your own immature and incredibly egtotistical manner of thinking.

by sam23 on Oct 19, 2008 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn’t weigh in on whether I regard terrorist acts as closer to kindergarten or murder, Sammy. If you had the reading comprehension skills one should possess as a college student at an institute as prestigious as the one you attend should have, you’d see that.

You seemed to be suggesting a once terrorist, always terrorist equation and that is not an equation everyone shares. I do not share it. Perhaps you believe it (perhaps not), but it’s important to recognize that it’s not an absolute. I’m of the opinion that terrorism, for starters, isn’t an absolute, that there are degrees based both on the intentions and the outcome. But for the specifics of Ayers’s actions as we know them (and this is an important qualifier since there’s some rather serious difference of opinion as to what he should and should not be assigned responsibility for) were criminal and should be taken seriously. At the very least, his actions could reasonably have put people at incidental risk even were that not the intention. They might have intentionally put people at risk and/or actually harmed people, though we do not know these as absolutes. If there were any hint that he was liable to do even the mildest interpretation of these possibilities, I’d be worried and I’d be concerned about someone working with him. I do think that such practices that he engaged in carry a taint that requires something substantial to separate him from that label. My opinion is that decades of leading a life where he has shown positive contributions to society without any hint of this violent past are sufficient to believe that he is no longer a terrorist. The time has been significant as has his record of service since. My opinion is that interacting with someone in a capacity that bears absolutely zero connection with those activities long after the activities had ceased and the individual had for quite some time led a very different life is not the least bit worrisome.

At this point, I do not think that the ‘terrorist’ label accurately describes who
Ayers is and a label that falsely identifies him as a threat when he is not. I think it is being used as a diversion by a desperate campaign, trying to make Obama sound scary when he is not (and in this way, it’s similar in motive to the “Obama/Osama” comparison that people are making now). This is opinion, and not one that you share, clearly.

Reminding me that people were killed by the Weathermen underground, even with ALLCAPS on MURDERED doesn’t change any of this, sammy. You are of the opinion that until he repents or ‘pays his debt to society’ he’s still a terrorist. Fine. That’s what you believe. It’s a belief though, not a definition, not some axiom that we must follow. I have pointed out where you seem to confuse the two. What “pays his debt to society” means is somewhat open to interpretation as well. Again, some might argue that ceasing to engage in the activity and, by more or less all accounts leading a life dedicated to peacefully helping those less fortunate is paying such debt. Yes, he probably should have gone to jail for what he did. He didn’t because of misconduct by prosecutors. This rules out getting the conviction that is necessary to incarcerate someone. If you believe it’s only through the criminal justice system that such can happen, then you’ll never be satisfied. Again, your view is not universal.

The real issues surrounding the Weathermen Underground are complex and not altogether clear. It’s clear that they engaged in terrorist activities. I don’t condone them at all regardless of my opinion of their motivations. It is less clear to what degree any of their actions that caused physical harm to people involved Ayers. Do we hold him responsible for all actions of the organization? If so, why? (Do we hold all members of the military responsible for what happened at Abu Ghraib? If not, why? And before you start any lunacy, no I’m NOT saying that the Weathermen are like military.) There are reasonable arguments for it, but you have not stated such arguments. You’ve just asserted things, claimed that you are troubled by Obama’s association (a position that it appears you do not share with Colin Powell, or, it appears, the majority of the American electorate for whatever that’s worth). But you don’t really explain yourself. What I read into it is that you’ve got something that borders on hero worship for McCain (dating back more than a decade by your admission and worship to a level that you got offended when people questioned his health) and it appears that you’re struggling for reasons to deride Obama. From my vantage, the reasons you seem to choose aren’t well substantiated and fall apart on close examination. Your mileage may vary.

Sammy, I’ve not dismissed anyone’s views, save the view that Palin is qualified because she’s not. I think your reasoning (or more precisely, the utter lack of reasoning that you display) is ignorant and/or simplistic, but I don’t dismiss the views. I’d have more respect for them and you if you could explain yourself. The word ‘dismiss’ again means something different from the way you are using it. I’ve brought attention that there are legitimate differences of opinion and that things are not absolute. Perhaps you are not able to see the difference between expounding that your views are not absolutes (e.g. when you present opinion labeled as "fact") but when you present things that are opinion as fact to support your views, I’ll call you on that ever time. This isn’t dismissing the view, sammy. It’s pointing out that the foundation for your argument is not absolute and consequently, constructing it as an absolute, as you tend to do, it faulty reasoning. You appear (and yes, it’s an appearance, but it’s all any of us have to go on) to take a position and hold it without much examination of why which can lead you to believe that things are facts, that they are absolutes when they are not. It’s apparent in the way you write. It’s also apparent in the bits that you grab on to.

Calling me egotistical doesn’t change things, sammy. It’s immaterial to an argument. It makes you feel better, I’m sure, and you’re using it to try to dismiss the substance. You’re hiding though when you’d be better served thinking. This is not “hypocritical” sammy. That word, like so many others, means something different from how you are using it.

I am sure that your views HAVE been shaped by things I don’t know about. I never claimed otherwise. My point about how little you know about me was in response to your claims that I had implied something I had not. It was false. Either you believed it (which I sincerely doubt) or you were mocking a false point (which seems much more likely). Your choice to divert into a point that should appear patently absurd, a false point that I was implying that terrorism was like kindergarten, fools no one sammy. It just makes you look like you’re hiding behind something when you’ve been called out and exposed, when the concrete worldview you seem to have is pointed out to be not so concrete.

by jae on Oct 19, 2008 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sam, it’s very, very troubling that you are accusing me of trying to “skip over [Palin’s plural charge] or change the subject.” This accusation is false. You are entirely making this up. I did not skip over it at all. I directly addressed it. my exact words:

Yes, I know that his wife worked at the same law firm as Michele Obama. There’s zero evidence that they even knew each other [it’s a huge firm] let alone ‘palled around." It’s a pretty steep step to take that to involve the pluralizing of his "palling around". It’s pure scare tactics from a campaign that seems to offer very little else.

Since as I understand it, Murtagh’s assertion that their connections ran deeper was by virtue of this law firm connection, your accusation that I didn’t address it is false, sammy. I suspect you’re just feeling desperate to score points in an argument where you do not have much to support your positions, but your assertion that I’ve skipped over something is desperately close to a lie, sammy, which is desperately close to making you a liar. Or perhaps you were trying to reference something else you think I’ve skipped over, and you’re just pathetically incompetent in your own prose.

by jae on Oct 15, 2008 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

jae, stop with the ridiculous analysis and attempts to dismiss my arguments as desperate attempts. You were wrong to attack Palin on that basis.

by sam23 on Oct 15, 2008 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

‘Scuse me? You accused me of skipping over something or changing the subject. I pointed out this was false. Now YOU are merely asserting I was wrong to attack Palin? WTF. Seriously, you’re not making any sense. This isn’t something new, but seriously, you aren’t. Or was this diversion of yours an attempt at irony?

by jae on Oct 15, 2008 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

you said

Palin shouldnt have used the word terrorists . Was Ayers’ wife not involved in the effort to launch Obama’s career from her own house?

by sam23 on Oct 16, 2008 2:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know what sort of involvement Dohrn had in the event. I don’t know how close Ayers and Obama were. Neither do you. I’m of the opinion that characterizing the relationship between Ayers and Obama, as they’ve described and as the record supports, doesn’t qualify as “palling around” and it is certainly inaccurate to portray it as something actively happening, something that I believe Palin’s language does. Extending it to say that he’s “palling around” with Ayers’s wife as well on basis of an event in 1995 is rather ridiculous.

by jae on Oct 16, 2008 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m of the opinion that characterizing the relationship between Ayers and Obama, as they’ve described

described when? the first time he was “just a guy down that lives down the block.” as more evidence to the contrary came out his tuned changed a bit. He has described him as someone he’s “frinedly” with. do you not pal around with people youre friendly with?

by sam23 on Oct 16, 2008 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Describing them as “palling around” as Palin has recently put it. Being friendly with someone does not have to mean that you pal around with them.

by jae on Oct 17, 2008 7:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

as you say

it is subjective, right?

by sam23 on Oct 18, 2008 12:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sure, but I don’t think that anyone would responsibly characterize the present Ayers-Obama non-relationship as “palling around” unless they were trying to slander and mislead or lie, which is exactly what I think Palin is trying to do. I think her words are irresponsible, designed to give people a false picture of events. I also think she knows this, but her campaign, in part burdened by having an incompetent moron as the VP pick, picked by a ticket head who showed that he too is incompetent by picking her is desperate and misleading to instill fear is all they’ve got.

by jae on Oct 18, 2008 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

misleading to instill fear is all they’ve got.

Trouble is people in hard time will fall for that crap. Hitler was attractive to Germans despite his nutcase personality. and the american public has shown it eats it up.
Joe the plumber making 40K per year is worried that Obama will raise the taxes on those making over 250K?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 18, 2008 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes

because joe the plumber, or thousands of americans like him, could very well lose their jobs if taxes are increased dramatically on businesses making 250 K. Dismiss it as trickle down economics if you like, but its simply true.

by sam23 on Oct 19, 2008 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ayers’ wife is also an unrepentant terrorist,

That’s the problem Sammy. If you read a little history beyond Palin’s gospel you’ll find that neither of them were “terrorists”. They didn’t bomb people to create terror, they bombed govt targets to stop a war. They were freedom fighters in the Boston tea party mold, Mavericks in other words! . Time has proven their view of the war was correct so they probably saved many lives with their pressure on the govt.
Their present goals are still to help people, the organizations they are involved in are charitable and oriented toward advancing the lives of the lower class. They are not using their politics to further the agenda of the mega rich or to advance their narrow religious views. If Obama has any connection with them it is only from his desire to help people, a coincidence of good deeds so to speak.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 15, 2008 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Freedom Fighters

Like Jose Rizal?

by Tony.psd on Oct 15, 2008 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

you ever read F. Sionil Jose's "Dusk"

by hardcore on Oct 15, 2008 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

you’ll find that neither of them were "terrorists".

They didn’t bomb people to create terror, they bombed govt targets to stop a war.

wow, wow, wow. You continue to surprise me as you seem to grow more and more radical and farther left with each post. jae, pleas step in here and correct this guy. Surely, you know that Ayers and his wife ARE terrorists. Skeptic, define terrorism. A faction or person that uses violence or a threat of violence against a government or organization in an attempt to achieve a political goal is not terrorism? Their present goals still dont rule out using violence. Democracy cant exist if those who disagree go around using violence to try to get their way. If you have to kill 4 police officers, attempt to kill several others, and go on a bombing spree in an attempt to advance the lives of the lower class its not worth it. This is exactly what I’m talking about with Obama…he tries to have it both ways by denouncing his actions,but at the same time commending him for being such a great human being!

by sam23 on Oct 15, 2008 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ayers and Dohrn “WERE” terrorists. Whether or not they ARE terrorists is in the realm of a subjective definition.

Where exactly did Obama commend Ayers for being “such a great human being”?

by jae on Oct 15, 2008 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

is Bin Laden still considered a terrorist or is he ok to associate with now? until you pay the price for your violent actions against innocents and honestly denounce your actions and apologize you cant begin to expect to not be considered a terrorist. Ayers has done none of the above.

by sam23 on Oct 15, 2008 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This, Sammy, is where you descend into a strawman. The equation of Ayers to Bin Laden is off by many orders of magnitude. Further, Bin Laden by everyone’s account, still actively holds notions of continuing attacks, having expressly said as much since. He has not done anything to indicate that his life has headed into a different direction. Presenting the false dichotomy (‘still a terrorist’ or ‘ok to associate with’) is weak. Do you really this analogy is solid? Do you really equate Ayers today with Bin Laden? It is not a view that is shared universally. Many seem to see Ayers as something other than a terrorist today, many including some very middle of the road figures and including some right wing fund sources. Just be aware that your opinions are just that: opinions, no matter how impossible it is for you to see that this is the case.

by jae on Oct 15, 2008 11:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

do I equate Ayers with Bin Laden?

no, but only because of the magnitude of their attacks. Ayers will not renounce his terrorist actions, in fact says he shouldve bombed more, and refused to rule out using violence to achieve his goals again. I think its very unlikely he will, and I dont think he’s plotting in his basement how to blow up a building as Bin Laden probably is in a cave somewhere right now, but it doesnt mean he’s not a terrorist.

by sam23 on Oct 16, 2008 2:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, Ayers said we should have done more, if you want to be accurate. It’s reasonable to think that he meant place more bombs, but from the context, it’s also reasonable to think that he meant more action in general to oppose the war.

That you brought up Bin Laden as a counter very much as the appearance that you were equating the two. If you did not intend to do so, I would recommend again being more careful in your prose and spending considerable time working with how you express yourself in words. Interjecting him in the thread unless you meant to draw some comparison is peculiar. I certainly hope you take some composition courses in college, sammy.

by jae on Oct 16, 2008 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Surely, you know that Ayers and his wife ARE terrorists.

   Terrorists goal is to try to cause “TERROR” by bombing innocents. Ayres group phoned in warnings before bombing symbolic govt. assets. I was a student in those days and I can definitely say I was not terrorized by their actions, I was only hoping Nixon would listen to the voice of reason.
    Terrorism was not a catchword in those days, not the strawman distraction from the root of the problems that they use the word for nowdays. When the mujahideen are trying to kick out the russians they are freedom fighters, when they have to kick us out they suddenly become terrorists, the jews blow up a hotel for their country but the Palestinians can’t blow up a bus?
      If you want real terror Sammy picture president Palin and first dude WTF his name is and their knocked up 17 year old leading us into the future? Now that scares me a lot more than Obama and Ayres trying to educate the poor kids of chicago.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 15, 2008 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ayers was a “voice of reason.” wow skeptic. come on man, even jae and sleepy and the gang wont stand with you on this one. It should tell you something. Who knew if Bin Laden had simply RSVP’ed we couldve gotten all those people out, let him make his statement and blow up the buildings and move on peacefully. Damn it I hope we didnt just miss his call!
Youre correct that freedom fighter and terrorist are mixed all too often, but thats the only thing youve said in the last 4 posts thats at all true.

by sam23 on Oct 16, 2008 2:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s not at all a stretch that Ayers and Dohrn were terrorists. Agreeing with their motives does not change their actions.

by jae on Oct 15, 2008 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

thank you

for taking a stand against someone who is obviously wrong despite the fact that you guys are on the same side for election.

by sam23 on Oct 15, 2008 6:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ok

So Ayers was a bad person. I still don’t understand how this makes Obama a threat as a president.

by 15thefuture8 on Oct 16, 2008 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I still don’t understand how this makes Obama a threat as a president.

It doesn’t.

by jae on Oct 17, 2008 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Terrorists and Freedom Fighters

Before the Revolution, supporters of the crown were called Patriots
Brits called the rebels worse than terrorists in the 1770s

Patriot => Terrorist?

El Salvador’s government called Reagan’s Freedom Fighters Terrorists in 1980s

Palestinian Freedom Fighters = Terrorists, to Israel

This is a silly game of semantics when the country needs solutions to serious problems

After the Revolutionary War, thousands of “Loyalists” and Traitors, er “Patriots” had to come back together and participate in the construction of a new society – and 30 years after Vietnam might it be time to follow their example?

the next argument, over Acorn & voter registration fraud will no doubt take us back to the 2000 election & Florida … and on and on until we spend all our time pissing over each other about unforgiven wrongs …

we gotta become better than this …

by hardcore on Oct 15, 2008 3:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

We are...

Except for, you know, our resident political troll.

And no, I’m not equating “conservative” with “troll.” Obviously there are plenty of right-wingers who deal in reason and who understand the difference between reasonable discourse and mindless trolling. Any statement involving the word “Obama” and “terrorist” is the latter — period. Continuing to belabor the point just makes the belaborer look more deranged.

As Joe Welch said to Joe McCarthy said in 1954:

Let us not assassinate this lad further, senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?

Step back from the ledge, Sammy.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 15, 2008 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol. are you watching DIII right now? they JUST re-hashed the hash over Ayers!

by hardcore on Oct 15, 2008 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

you dont think

the unclear relationship between Obama and Ayers is at all relevant? Or do you simply take Obama at his word that he is simply a guy down the street?

by sam23 on Oct 15, 2008 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ayers-Obama isn't even in the top 10 of most important issues in this election

In no particular order -

The future of the Supreme Court that will need to protect our rights from our own government
Abortion
Education Reform and funding for 21st Century students
War & Occupation in Iraq & Afghanistan which is currently increasing our danger from terrorism
The lack of recognition of people and states in the Middle East: both Israel & Palestine
Wall Street crash and lack of regulatory oversight
Health Care & Health Insurance
Housing Crisis & foreclosures due to overly aggressive lenders now being bailed out at our expense
Rebuilding our international reputation and relationships with European Allies
Russia
Pork Barrel Legislation Reform
Dependence on Foreign Oil

and I’d add more – Tax reform, Medicare reform, Social Security insurance funding …

Ayers?! any campaign hinging itself on Ayers-issues is incapable or unwilling to address FAR more important issues … like who our President is if grandpa becomes too ill to serve …

by hardcore on Oct 15, 2008 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

not unwilling or incapable

but Ayers is ONE issue also. You guys constantly want to bring up Palin’s intellect, Ayers’ association with Obama is similar.

by sam23 on Oct 15, 2008 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Palin’s intellect

obviously, I’d love to pontificate on how that could be an out and out oxymoron but I’ve tried to turn over a new leaf … I don’t see the issues at all as similar – Ayers is loosely connected to Obama’s past while Palin’s directly and prominently tied to McCain’s present and future

another way to think of it is do you agree that any of those other issues as more important, and should be getting more attention in the campaign than Ayers? are any of them more important than the selection of Palin?

by hardcore on Oct 15, 2008 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

well

I think they are all more important than the selection of Palin. In fact I think they are all more important than the nominations of Obama and McCain. If Obama really cant see the wrong in his relationship with Ayers I am concerned. Are you not the least bit troubled by the strange circle of folks Obama seems to have surrounded himself with before the campaign? Skeptic loves to pound Palin for her “crazy” beliefs, bus driving pastor and redneck background, but Obama’s relationships trouble me much more than Palin’s. I’ve said over and over that Palin wasnt the best possible choice, but I also feel so much of this piling on is due to the fact that she is so different from those of us in areas like the bay area, DC and NY.

by sam23 on Oct 16, 2008 2:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are entitled to be more bothered by these things. You are in the minority, not only here, but in the nation. I do find it troubling that you think that interacting in a way that, by all accounts has nothing to do with Ayers’s background, is somehow more dangerous than placing a person seemingly unversed in world affairs, someone who appears to be pathological in her ability to lie and distort (yes, I’m calling Palin a liar) in line to be the president. If Obama had poor judgment more than a decade ago, McCain has disqualifying judgment at the present time.

by jae on Oct 16, 2008 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If McCain really cant see the wrong in his selection of Palin I am concerned

piling on?! how about a heart-beat away vs decades old acquaintance – hmm, which is more significant? sam23 you’re credibility is leaking away …

by hardcore on Oct 16, 2008 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Er ... his what?

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 16, 2008 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did you?

sign up for the fantasy league?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 16, 2008 10:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm retired

WAY too much of a time-drain.

When I found myself rushing home one night to make a trade before the pre-game deadline, I knew it was time to give it a rest.

Plus, truth be told, I was a little hurt that I never got my free Tony.PSD artwork for any of my three titles… :,-(

So who ended up winning the GSoM league for the second half of last year?

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 16, 2008 11:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

who ended up winning the GSoM league for the second half of last year?

Don’t know, I was banned. but I’m back now! If you don’t play how will I know if I really won?
Sammy boy, are you signed up to show your basketball knowledge?
I think jae and Sammy should use the fantasy league to settle their differences?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 17, 2008 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am signed up I think, but I doubt I’ll stay up to date on it. And I already kinda regret the team I made.

by sam23 on Oct 18, 2008 12:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I already kinda regret the team I made.

Go change it then, no one leaves them the same very long. As soon as I pick someone they get hurt or get crappy.Just plan your two trades per week so you can get rid of them when they have a bad schedule or if they get hurt.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 18, 2008 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh I thought

we couldnt start making our trades til the season started. I’ll check it out though, thanks.

by sam23 on Oct 19, 2008 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Palin’s intellect, Ayers’ association with Obama is similar.

Focus, Palin could end up president if McCain wins, She could saddle us with religious nutcase supreme court judges for a generation, thus stifling the future of our whole country. . Ayres might possibly advocate a little more effectively for the poor if Obama wins. That’s a big difference.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 15, 2008 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Senate didn’t confirm Bork, hopefully checks and balances will continue to moderate extremes

by hardcore on Oct 15, 2008 10:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hopefully checks and balances will continue to moderate extremes

McCain is not attractive enough to make it worth taking a chance on that. I don’t want to live in a backward religious dominated Iran type of state under president Palin and her school bus driving pastor. I’d be willing to partition off a few red states into a new country for those that want to go that way if necessary, there they can stew in their fears and conflicts while we progress into a bright future.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 15, 2008 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i heard something ridiculous from mccain

he said why do people with these “gold plated cadillac plan have things like cosmetics and TRANSPLANTS while no one should have things like that”

IS HE OUT OF HIS MIND
ITS 2008 PEOPLE NEED TRANSPLANTS BECAUSE THEY WILL DIE MR MCCAIN
IF YOU WERE THINKING OF IMPLANTS THEN GET UP TO THE CURRENT TIME

by montadaboss on Oct 15, 2008 7:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

transplants

as in hair transplants like he’s mentioned before. Is that really what you took away from the debate?

by sam23 on Oct 15, 2008 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

serious question

I thought you said you’d served in the arms services, but I forget which one – McCain suggested tonight that he’d be in favor of allowing vets to come home and bypass the tests teachers have to pass and put them in the classroom. If you’ve served and can recall the aptitudes of your mates, what would you say to McCain’s idea? Are those men and women capable of walking into a classroom and teaching the students what they need in the 21st Century? I’d bet a lot of them have some technical training, etc. from their service – would that translate into the classroom?

by hardcore on Oct 15, 2008 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ha funny you bring that up

when he said that it left me completely stunned for a minute. Would guys I served with have the aptitude and necessary skills to jump into a classroom? My first reaction: absolutely not. ….but then knowing some recently hired teachers and quite a few people who have been involved in the Teach For America program, they really cant do a whole lot worse. But thats a discussion for another day.
I assume that McCain intends to extend that program only to officers who nearly all have a college education and a lot more maturity than the enlisted side. The enlisted side is full of idiots and I mean that in the most loving way possible. My last platoon commander, a man who I have an enormous amount of repsect for (and a fellow UCD Aggie), is now a history teacher in the bay and I’m sure he’s a damn fine one, though I’m sure he’s probably not anything like the high school history teachers you or I had. I think I’d be in favor of this program for officers only, but I would like for them to be SOME testing or filtration process. I actually doubt most of that technical training would translate as theyd be so used to such a rigid structure, strict adherence to even the smallest rules, and of course a whole other level of discipline and means to achieve it. However, I was in a grunt unit and even within the Marine Corps the POGue (Personell Other than Grunt) is very very different from the grunt side. I suspect the transition from there, the navy, the air force, the coast guard, or even the army would be quite a bit easier and they would have received some technical training that would translate. In my somewhat limited experiences with POGue marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen they seem to have the discipline needed in our classrooms without the “hardcore” unforgiving attitude found in quite a few grunt units that would impede the transition. Additionally unlike TFA, or even just college students seeking their credentials, I sincerely doubt many officer who couldnt make the transition from the battlefield to classroom would attempt to make the move. I’d be in favor of the program as long as he doesnt mean the enlisted side and as long as there is SOME training involved.

by sam23 on Oct 16, 2008 2:18 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

also

being so used to the delegation of authority and responsibility could make for some rough transitioning

by sam23 on Oct 16, 2008 2:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

we know your a right winger sam

so you have to come a ruin the fun

by montadaboss on Oct 15, 2008 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ha sorry

i’ve actually been trying to stay out of the way or you guys with your jokes. No sense starting a fight with Tony over a drawing when there plenty of stuff to fight with jae and sleepy about. I slipped up, sorry I stepped on your joke.

by sam23 on Oct 16, 2008 2:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

debate

What I took away from the debate was Joe plumber

by 15thefuture8 on Oct 16, 2008 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Keith Olbermann

The guy is an absolute joke. He rips McCain for every little tongue tied mistake as if it affects his ability to be President. Even Hannity and OReilly dont do that with Obama (he described the two sides of abortion as being “pro-choice and those who favor abortion” but you wone catch that on any cable news networks because it ISNT news) The only thing more gaudy than his outright bias are his disgusting pinstriped suits. Not to mention the fact that he freely throws unfounded accusations and insults at the military while claiming to be their protector. How does he still have a job? Go back to sportscasting Keith. Better yet, go away.

by sam23 on Oct 15, 2008 8:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Heh.

I basically agree. Even down to the pinstripes.

Then again, I don’t think KO’s ever presented himself as anything but a liberal, less hateful (but no less blowhardy) version of Bill O’Reilly. Nobody but the most hardcore Kossacks thinks of him as a serious journalist.

I’m actually impressed you have the stomach to watch him. I mean, I actually get physically ill watching O’Reilly and Hannity, and they generally wear nice suits…

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 15, 2008 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

well

I feel horribly guilty watching OReilly and Hannity. They can be pretty ridiculous, but EVERY time I watch Olbermann its the same crap. At least OReilly and Hannity confront those with opposing views regularly even if it is rigged for them to always get the last word. Keith’s show is a giant stroke fest as his hardest hitting “debates” are with Maddow who usually sounds like Olbermann wrote her material. And now that I think about it Hannity’s suits can rival Olbermann’s at times. I’m glad to hear you say that though, the thing that really scares me about Olbermann is I worry its the only place some people go for their news.

by sam23 on Oct 15, 2008 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Keith Olbermann

I don’t know who this guy is but he’s not on my ballot so what’s the problem?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 15, 2008 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

its an open

political thread is it not? I didnt say Olbermann is a reason to not vote Obama. Chill. We dont have to fight with every comment, do we?

by sam23 on Oct 16, 2008 2:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We dont have to fight with every comment, do we?

No, Just curious why this guy is important to you?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 16, 2008 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

olbermann isn't a man, baby,

he’s some kind of synthetic life form programmed with a witty and wide lexicon and skinned in white man pimp suits. why is this guy important?

the stop calling him "beans" movement

by pervisNeverNervous on Oct 16, 2008 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

he’s some kind of synthetic life form programmed with a witty and wide lexicon and skinned in white man pimp suits.

Dang, Sounds sorta like me?
Where can I see this dude in action? As you can tell I don’t watch much tv other than Warriors games.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 16, 2008 8:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey Jae,

If you ran for President… who would you running mate be?

Skeptic? Sleepy?

How about You Sammy?

:-)

by Tony.psd on Oct 15, 2008 8:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

ha

I dont think Jae and I could exactly have a Lieberman/McCain type relationship. I think it would have to be Sleepy or Hardcore. Skeptic is a little too radical, Sleepy seems like he’d relate better and turn out the vote and if we’re measuring experience by post #‘s he’d certainly bring that, while hardcore would balance the ticket.

by sam23 on Oct 15, 2008 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

LOL!

by Tony.psd on Oct 15, 2008 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Skeptic is a little too radical,

I’m solidly in the middle!
I just understand how the world works better so I’m not afraid to point out the obvious.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 15, 2008 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

sure thing Nader, keep telling yourself and everyone else that. Eventually someone has to believe you.

by sam23 on Oct 16, 2008 1:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

sure thing Nader

No, Nader is a good example of one who doesn’t know how the world works. Get that Sammy?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 16, 2008 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

exactly. I’m surprised you caught on.

by sam23 on Oct 16, 2008 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m surprised you caught on.

Sammy, Looks like I’m more Warren Buffet than Ralph Nader. I read where buffet is buying stocks now, and I said last week that I was buying for the first time in over a year.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 17, 2008 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think I’d want Baron as my VP.

by jae on Oct 15, 2008 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll take Captain Jack

Maverick.

by sam23 on Oct 16, 2008 2:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Baron

does seem to be all about change this offseason.

by sam23 on Oct 16, 2008 2:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

two things that stood out in the debate

1. when mccain said he wanted military personnel to be able to go into civilian teaching jobs “without having to take certification examinations some states require” made me cringe. sorry, but don’t we only want qualified persons teaching in schools? everyone must be competent.
2. when obama was talking about late term abortion and mccain snorted “the woman’s health” disdainfully, as if the health of a woman was something made up by obama and “pro-abortion” folks. noboy’s is pro-abortion. jeezus. for the life of me i can’t even understand why abortion is still an issue. it’s been thirty five years since this thing’s been solved. let’s move on.

the stop calling him "beans" movement

by pervisNeverNervous on Oct 16, 2008 10:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

it’s been thirty five years since this thing’s been solved. let’s move on.

We wish we could. It’s been longer than that since the scopes trial but the religious nuts still are fighting that one too. As long as we have selfish extremists living among us we’ll have to be on guard defending our freedoms. They are not happy doing what they want, they also want to make everyone else do what they want even if we don’t believe the same dogma as they do. People like Palin are no different than the taliban, just a bizarro version. Panderers like McCain encourage the extremist by telling them anything they want to hear. The anti choice squad always talks about abortion as if it is always killing healthy full term bouncing toddlers when it’s often done to prevent suffering of a badly conceived child who will die soon after birth or will live a lifetime of hell. Take god out of the discussion and apply science and reason and then there is no question what makes sense and what is right for each individual situation. The bottom line as settled by Roe V Wade is If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t get one. Couldn’t be much simpler than that.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 16, 2008 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i was pulling my hair out

screaming at the tv as if i were watching the inept 9ers game while they were talking about this (non) “issue”. you’re certainly right, it is simple, yet instead of getting into meaty issues—education, immigration, energy policy, infrastructure, environment, hell even teen pregnancy—they’re getting all emotional (on a side note, you did get the "real mccain there, instead of the coached robot that’s showed up at these past debates) over a private social/medical scenario. i mean, doesn’t anybody find it ironic that it’s a table full of men arguing about this?
this is how supreme court judges appointed by the president, approved by congress, matter in our daily lives. no matter how long we’ve enjoyed our rights and freedoms, (beyond the abortion non issue) the SC could take them away in a snap. hello patriot act.

the stop calling him "beans" movement

by pervisNeverNervous on Oct 16, 2008 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

we’ve been down this path already, so I’ll not repeat here other than to say I’m a bit disappointed and surprised by your unevolved view

by hardcore on Oct 16, 2008 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

if you dont believe in murder

dont murder anyone. Couldnt be much simpler than that. C’mon man, I’m not even totally pro-life…still cant really pick a side. But you cant dismiss pro-choice as being factually wrong. Especially not with that ridiculous roundabout argument. So interesting that you choose to frame the opposition as anti-choice. Nobody is calling your side the anti-life side. Its the same kind of “logical” that you and jae have been making throughout these threads, but attempting to dismiss an entire ideological opposition as completely non-sensical is simply ignorant.

by sam23 on Oct 19, 2008 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But you cant dismiss pro-choice as being factually wrong??

Can you clarify your position? Are you for the freedom for a woman to chose what happens to her body or not? What does this “pro-choice as being factually wrong” statement mean to you?
If the religious nuts are anti choice that’s what I’ll call them. I’m pro choice, I wouldn’t think of taking away their right to be religious nuts but they won’t return the courtesy about a woman’s right to an abortion? What’s not logical about my approach? In a free country you gotta let the others have their freedoms too, even if you don’t like them.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 19, 2008 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

freedoms are not unlimited

freedoms, as in the Bill of Rights and elsewhere expressed, are not absolutes – the common example being the freedom of speech does not give one the right to enter a movie theatre and shout “fire!” because that impinges upon the freedom and safety of others.

a right to privacy is a freedom that we enjoy, yet neither is it an absolute

women should have the right to privately decide whether to have sex, so in the case of rape or incest very few would even suggest a woman should be forced to carry the pregnancy full term

women and men should have the right to privately decide whether to use protection from STDs and to use contraceptives – and they do, as so many who “try” to get pregnant choose not to use those preventative measures. there is the choice that is their right.

once a woman chooses to allow herself to become pregnant, there are now TWO sets of rights to be protected – the unborn child’s and the mother’s, and yes it is an unborn child – that’s why we call her a mother-to-be and often choose names for babies before they’re even born. That child has heartbeat, brainwaves, blood vessels, etc. At that point they have a right not to be violated physically, just as a woman has a right not to be violated physically.

we aren’t all religious nuts who are pro-life, but then again you know that and choose to ignore it – that’s ok, you have a right to that choice, but those who see abortion as murder have logical and legal as well as spiritual ground to stand on

by hardcore on Oct 19, 2008 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

it is an unborn child –

At the point where it become able to live on it’s own free from any assistance of the mother then you can have it. till then it is the mother right to decide if she wants her body parts to proceed to term.
You can have you own opinion of what is right for your body and it’s products but when you try to force it on others you cross the line. You’ll probably be mistaken for a religious zealot often if you try to control people like they do?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 19, 2008 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

it is an unborn child

that’s it, stop right there, you got it – no need to go further. It’s a child, as such has rights, end of story.

by hardcore on Oct 19, 2008 9:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

no need to go further

If you can’t get past the first line who will ever take you seriously? You like to burn books too?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 19, 2008 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

turnaboutisfairplay

just using your own tactic Skeptic – recognize it?

I’m not worried about whether people take me seriously, but I think you owe it to the unborn children to take their rights seriously- at least as seriously as women’s rights- you and I have sparred over this before, and I always wonder if you really believe the extreme position you purport to or if you just like yanking people’s chains – same question I used to have about sam23 … in fact, it’s been kind of a schizo experience agreeing and disagreeing with you both in the same thread! … anyway, I’ll stand down, for now – have the last word if it makes you feel better

btw, fwiw – my favorite poster= any book worth burning is worth reading

by hardcore on Oct 19, 2008 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

recognize it?

No, matter of fact I don’t? I’ve never said “end of story” , I’m always willing to consider others views so that’s why I support those with different views.
I do owe it to wanted, nurtured, born,completed, delivered products of a willing mother to support their rights but I don’t need to worship at the alter of the moment of conception is sacred church. It takes more than some biological elements to make us truly human, it takes a free loving mother not a forced slave laborer. At the point that she decides to offer her child to the world then it is done till then it should not concern any of us.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 20, 2008 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

so you’d support abortion rights right up until the very moment of birth?

by sam23 on Oct 20, 2008 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

so you’d support abortion rights right up until the very moment of birth?

In most cases that wouldn’t be necessary, most people who take advantage of the procedure use it very early in the pregnancy. These late term abortions the zealots bring up are always for a good reason, a fatally flawed fetus, or a serious threat to the womans health for instance. I’m not worried about a rash of late term abortions ,if they happen they happen for good reason but the choice is not mine to make. I can feel sorry for the people that need them but glad they have the option to avoid something worse.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 20, 2008 8:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Then that’s the end of that.
by Skeptic con Urquell

http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2008/9/28/623583/educating-sammy-the-gsom-p

by hardcore on Oct 20, 2008 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

... and if ya' don't know... now ya' know!

Baby! Baby!

by Tony.psd on Oct 21, 2008 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

but

not if you perceive it to be murder. This IS a free country but we certainly arent and certainly shouldnt be entirely free.

by sam23 on Oct 19, 2008 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

not if you perceive it to be murder

If you perceive it as murder then don’t do it! and have the courtesy to let others who don’t perceive it as murder make their own decision about their medical matters. Dang , is that too hard to comprehend? Is it too hard to not want to be a control freak? Maybe you would be happier living as a dictator somewhere so you can be the big boss?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 19, 2008 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

so if someone commits murder, but THEY dont perceive it to be murder, its cool? Like I said, I’m not totally against abortion, I get what youre saying and I’m for a smaller government, but its really not that hard to see the other side.

by sam23 on Oct 20, 2008 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

so if someone commits murder, but THEY dont perceive it to be murder, its cool?

If they are destroying parts of their own body then it’s none of your business. Once it’s delivered then it can be your business :>) If you are not anti choice then why worry about someone else’s’ medical problems? It just like gay marriage. If you don’t want to marry a gay don’t marry one, it doesn’t hurt you if someone else wants to marry a gay! The control freaks worship a “maverick” but can’t stand letting real mavericks exist??

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 20, 2008 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Skep

I basically share your position, but I think you demean gay marriage by likening it to abortion. As hardcore says, there are legitimate, logically coherent reasons to oppose abortion. Unless you think the moment of delivery is imbued with a magical power, you have to accept that difference between a fetus and human being is pretty fuzzy, and the line we draw between the two is necessarily arbitrary.

In gay marriage, we’re talking a straight issue of bigotry v. human rights, very much comparable to the civil rights issues of the ‘60s. It’s just much, much more black and white.

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 20, 2008 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s just much, much more black and white.

you mean gay marriage vs. aboriton, not gay marriage vs the civil rights movement, right?

by sam23 on Oct 20, 2008 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, yeah.

Gay marriage is a pure civil rights issue.

Abortion is a more complicated issue.

Agreed?

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 20, 2008 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yea

by sam23 on Oct 20, 2008 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you demean gay marriage by likening it to abortion.

Yes, It didn’t come out as clear as I wanted it to. The similarity is solely in the fact that both are personal decisions and should not be regulated by those who don’t agree with the decisions. If we all want to regulate who some one else loves or when someone else has children we’ll make this country a horrible place to live . Look at how that works in Iran or Afghanistan.
I’ve got some good friends that are gay and some good friends that have had to get abortions( but can’t recall any gay good friends needing abortions :>) ) and I support them all to do what they feel is right for their own situations.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 20, 2008 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

demean gay marriage?

civil rights issue vs. right to live issue

uh, who’s being demeaned?

at least those who want to marry have the opportunity to fight for that right, the unborn child has no opportunity to fight for itself

btw, don’t misunderstand – I’m also pro gay marriage

by hardcore on Oct 20, 2008 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

uh, who’s being demeaned?

  The woman who’s turned into an involuntary baby breeding machine if the Palins of the world get their way.
  This is the 21st century, we know how the body works, we know how to take advantage of the technology, why be forced to abide by some outdated guilt trip usually religiously based, written by some old guys some 2000 years ago?
Your concern for the possible child is great , for you, but not for the woman who is the one doing the work!
   If you love children have lots and enjoy them, and don’t focus on those who don’t want to have them for whatever reason.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 20, 2008 8:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No need to put words in other people’s mouths, not very becoming of you and you are capable of so much more, much much more.

Of course no one is being turned into a baby breeding machine, and I’m not voting for Palin nor McCain as you know.

It just would seem that in the 21st century, with our knowledge and science and understanding of the human body, there is certainly no reason why people who CHOOSE to have sex don’t also CHOOSE to use condoms to prevent STDs and contraceptives to prevent pregnancy. Guiltless, loving, passionate, carnal sex is ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS! For all the men & women that don’t want a baby they have the choice not to. As an aside, men have a very real and responsible role as they also CHOOSE to have unprotected sex. But when they CHOOSE to ignore the opportunities they enjoy (and believe me, very enjoyable) to prevent bringing a life into the world, they have consequences that affect other human beings. This isn’t the only time our choices have consequences – drinking and driving have consequences for other members of society and we legislate against that.

You CHOSE not to address the substantive arguments I made on the previous thread, preferring to make a witty little retort to avoid addressing the points I made, then became indignant when the same was applied to you here. I invite you to address these arguments. Here is the link again for your convenience:

http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2008/9/28/623583/educating-sammy-the-gsom-p

Some of those points related to standing against slavery, standing for women’s rights, etc. as righteous and moral. To those now I’d add standing against child abuse. Children have rights, parents are supposed to protect children – not abuse them. And our society rightly has evolved to the point where we do curb parent’s rights when they violate the child’s. As mentioned elsewhere here, the rights we enjoy are not absolute and this applies to parental rights now. One of your points earlier seemed to suggest that a child isn’t a child until it can survive on it’s own. Well, whether a few months before it’s born or a few months following it’s birth the baby can’t survive without nurturing. Babies need protection.

As I said previously, I do understand the abject fear all of us and women in particular share about the government controlling our bodies. I just think it pales a bit in comparison to the baby’s fear when the sharpened hook enters the placenta and begins its deadly work.

It appears your major argument is against religious zealots, and that you cannot get beyond the fact that an atheist, pro-gay marriage democrat could rationally and logically conclude that the best moral choice humanity should condone in the 21st century is pro-life. In a sense it’s really an existential question, not a religious one, at least for myself.

by hardcore on Oct 20, 2008 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You CHOSE not to address the substantive arguments I made on the previous thread,

  Haha, No I tried the link and it took me back to the top of the thread of a couple hundred posts, I din’t know what to respond to from there.
   But I’ll try to answer some of the questions you pose here.
   Of course we should try to not get pregnant without wanting a baby but accidents happen. No reason to turn into a mass of quaking jello and forget that we can control our bodies now days instead of being at the mercy of them? If a baby was not intended when the sex occurred what makes it a good idea to follow thru with an unwanted baby? Again I’ll offer that you can have all the babies you want and it is none of my business but give others the same courtesy even if their number happens to be zero.
   And yes finished babies need protection , once they are able to live separate from their mothers bodily assistance there is no argument for harming them but till that time the mother is the key person in this debate. Without her there would be no baby to argue over so give her the right to decide if and when she wants to give the world her gift. Genes will sort out the whole mess if you just relax and let mother nature take it’s course.
  I was a preborn once and can state that I don’t remember a thing about it and if I was aborted I’m sure it would have not bothered me that much. The typical aborted embryo probably feels about as much as the typical bug that most of us step on with little concern, it’s an emotional hysteric to worry about the ones’ human-ness without worrying about the others bug-ness isn’t it? Unless you are a subscriber to the religious “god created man in his image” line? You say you are not so your species-centric fixation doesn’t really make sense to me?
  I don’t really know what existential means, but I think your concern for the babies is a good thing as long as you don’t think others are less deserving of their own direction. I’m not gonna lose sleep over some potential mothers decision to not have a child, it’s not my child or my responsibility or my right to make her decision. Functionally the world has plenty of people already, so there’s other things I’d rather dwell on .

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 20, 2008 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

remaining courteous is difficult

in these types of exchanges isn’t it?

I agree, Accidents Happen.

- and responsible people own up to them and take ownership over them, they should not run away from them. We would hope people responsible enough to leave a note on our car if they hit it in the parking lot. Intended or not, the baby is coming – s/he has no choice but to grow and be dependent upon the mother for protection. At least allow the “unwanted baby” to be adopted rather than killed with no more angst as stepping on a bug (not sure you won anyone over with that or the jelly analogy). And if we just let “mother nature take it’s course,” I would relax. Miscarriages are part of nature, Abortions are not.

Whether you’d like not to “dwell on” their deaths, babies deserve someone who will at least dwell on their lives. History may well judge us cruelly for our indifference to the unborn, and it wouldn’t be the first time we let scientific capability draw us away from moral responsibility. A baby is not a medical problem, a baby is a reason to use medical knowledge to save.

Discover existentialism, it’s worth the trouble.

by hardcore on Oct 21, 2008 7:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Accidents Happen.- and responsible people own up to them

For sure, and an abortion is one way to own up to the mistake. It’s sometimes preferable to compounding the mistake by having a baby one doesn’t want or need. There are people with lives that are not designed around childbearing, they have better things to do or cannot afford a child or maybe already have as many children as they want. It is not our place to dictate to them how they must feel about a possible child.
Abortion is just one more tool in the box. First line is contraception, then morning after pill, and lastly abortion. Look at it scientifically and it is a lot easier to comprehend. Don’t put your child in the place of the unwanted child, it is not your child that won’t be born. It is not any child you’ve ever known or will ever know that won’t be born. It is just parts that won’t get used. We waste the same parts every time we use a condom or take a birth control pill so don’t add any special connotation to the parts being a bit further along the assembly line. So they are combined, so what? The religious call it gods will or something to that effect, I’m not sure why you think the moment is so special? Tell me about your money trail and how it relates to abortion and maybe I’ll understand more. I’ve got no dog in the fight so I can look at it objectively.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 21, 2008 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

baby steps

well, at least you’ve come around to calling it a baby

- for all the circumstances you cite, I’d argue that adoption is still a “better scenario” than abortion, which is far more than merely a tool in the toolbox to the baby who’s flesh is ripped apart by the sanitized hooks and who’s bodies bleed to death within their mother’s womb.

The whole is greater than the sum of the parts – human life is not parts and your argument doesn’t hold up to rational scrutiny, nor objectivity. Tonsils and spleens are removed, they are parts and you can survive those procedures. Equating them to abortion is absurd. The abortion rationalized through this manner is hiding the guilt of the knowledge that what is perpetrated upon the child is a crime, a violent murderous act which if imposed upon us would be met with the most severe penalty. Our sophisticated mind can rationalize supreme acts of inhumanity – witness the Nazis. Here I am not equating the holocaust to abortion, but pointing out the process of rationalization gone to horrible extremes.

Pro-choice’s best argument, and the only one with any validity from my point of view, is that a woman’s body is her own and the government ought to stay out of our bodies (at least!). Like all rights however, there are limits to our freedoms, and my counter argument remains that we are talking about two bodies, both with rights. And it is our duty to protect the rights of both.

Abortion is not a tool to erase a mistake, it is killing the unborn child. If it was a mistake to become pregnant, “compounding” the mistake is to then commit an act of violence, to kill the baby rather than commit the act of humanity and allow a defenseless child to enter the world. The world is truly random, it is only our hubris which allows us to think we should somehow control our lives down to every detail. We have lots of choices of how to live our lives, and allow others to live theirs – including the baby.

Abortion is not the same as miscarriage, because it is intentionally killing the child. Abortion is not merely a medical procedure – doctors swear oaths to protect the sanctity of life, and more and more are realizing that abortion flies in the face of that oath and are increasingly refusing to participate in that act. We may come to a point where the medical profession, not the government, curbs abortions. Interesting – could we then be faced with the situation where we must force a doctor to act against conscience and kill the baby in the womb? Where do the rights cease to be absolute?

I do not agree with jae about perpetuating abortion legally because they will still occur if made illegal. We can dramatically reduce the incidences through better choices and support of expectant mothers’ rights, so the number of unwanted pregnancies can be drastically lessened as well as the number of abortions. Here I am advocating for better health care, education, and increasing the health of women. Fewer babies would be killed, and though some will still be aborted illegally the larger majority of women and children would be healthier. The few women suffering the effects of an illegal abortion would still be able to access medical treatment, in my world, confidentially. Is that a loophole in my logic? Yes it is. I prefer to allow for that rather than perpetuate abortion. It’s a decent choice on many ethical levels.

I appreciate the amicable exchange and the retreat from extremist statements like involuntary breeding machines, money trails, etc which only serve to detract from your reasoned position.

by hardcore on Oct 21, 2008 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hardcore, I think the problem is that there’s just an extreme difference of opinion as to whether or not an embryo is a child or not. You appear to believe as much. Others do not. Defining this by fiat presents a situation where a rather significant portion of the population is on the other side of the definition.

I am not sure to what oath you are referencing that a doctor takes to “protect the sanctity of life.” Please reference. “Sanctity of life” does not seem to appear in the Hippocratic oath.

by jae on Oct 21, 2008 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

on the first point, if we could agree that the unborn will become a child if left unaborted I’d think most people would then admit that the unborn child has the potential to be born, and that aborting that child means it ending the child’s life

perhaps all the rationalizations and scientific terminology has clouded our judgment and allowed us to fool ourselves into believing that just because we can do something medically makes it right. Well, it doesn’t. If we’ve become so advanced that we now kill our young and can rationalize that, we aren’t so advanced.

the hippocratic oath was what I was thinking about, and if doctors apply that to the unborn child we me yet see a trend in the medical field that fewer and fewer docs will perform this “procedure”

clearly I seem to be a minority of one on this thread, but I take solace in two very different individuals who stand up to the onslaught – one of course is sam23, and the other Gandhi who taught that the truth was still the truth even if only one person spoke it.

by hardcore on Oct 21, 2008 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whoa, dude.

Quite the spectrum there! Perhaps the greatest advocate for Peace the world has ever known … and sam23. Bless him, but seriously.

Personally, I take solace in the three great men who have always spoken the shining truth amid the darkness of ignorance: Buddha, Jesus, and JAE…

OBAMA AMABO

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 21, 2008 8:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

jae wins on use of evidence, but the others might have a leg up on the ascension into heaven scale

by hardcore on Oct 21, 2008 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

the others might have a leg up on the ascension into heaven scale

I thought you said you are not religious?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 21, 2008 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

thank you

I wasn’t really sure you actually read everything I wrote :-P

Buddha believed in ascension into nirvana, Jesus believed in God, I’m not religious but I’m not so arrogant as to assume I know everything that doesn’t exist therefore the possibility exists …

hey Skeptic, it’s been interesting sparring over this whole abortion thing, but for the sake of the posters who are trying to rec another thread over this one just to shut me up I’m gonna stand down – just so long as you know I’m not giving in ;-)

by hardcore on Oct 21, 2008 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

but I’m not so arrogant as to assume I know everything that doesn’t exist therefore the possibility exists …

I also don’t think I know everything but I can see where the Jesus, god, etc. myths probably came from. I see no evidence of a supernatural all powerfull being ready to send us to hell though, so I’ll go with my instincts . Obey physics, respect gravity, study nature, offer love, create my own heaven, and avoid my own hell.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Ur

Golden State Of Mind: An SB Nation Community

Network Bar

Golden State Of Mind -

The GSoM Political Thread, Part III : The Debate

Who won the Debate?

Senator John Mccain

Senator Barack Obama

No One, It was equally tied

Mccain because he has a VPILF

Obama is my homeboy

Comments