Hi Guys,

Skip you made the accusation that Obama's a Marxist, so it up to you to convince him or anyone else that your statement is true.

Take Care
Rico

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I am no big fan of John McCain, but I find Obama's ideas to frightening beyond belief. I guess it simply proves that Sir Winston was right.

Sir Winston was a smart cookie.  He had a lot of relevent things to say that really go to the heart of democracy as it's practiced in the US.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

Quoting Snark:

Quote:
Quoting bbursiek:

Quote:
First of all I think McCain did the right thing by trying to reign in some of his more rapid supporters.

But I also would point out that there are plenty of leftwing nuts out there who are just as crazy as those mentioned on the right. There are plenty of sources (articles, photos etc.) I could cite to support this contention but I think most people can acknowledge that much.

-------------------------

Snark,

A thoughtful response - thanks.

On your point about lying and obfuscating - I would point to several things -- Obama's primary debate repsonse that Ayers was just some guy I know from the neighborhood. His claim that he never heard any of the more incendiary remarks Wright made over the years. His unwillingness to discuss his time at Columbia.

In any case I really have serious doubts about Obama beyond just the normal dislike of a political opponent. I hope the American people agree and don't put him in the White House.

Your point about the election is probably at least partially true but when people have developed this almost spiritual connection to some charismatic figure with a thin record and a radical past what other avenue of attack is open to you.

Brian

I agree wholeheartedly that McCain did the right thing and that should be acknowledged.  There are definately nuts on both sides.  This time around I think those on the right are angrier and more vocal, but you can't blame the cantidates for their supporters.  However there should be a measure of control at the rallies.  Allowing them to run amuck while you're speaking to them reflects badly on the cantidate.  As McCain discovered.

As far as dissembling over Ayers, the whole quote was:

[b]"This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George."

Obama has been fairly forthcoming about his relationship with Ayers.  Personally, I don't think there's a dark secret there.  Details of his associate with Ayers on the educational board can be found at:
[/b]
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html

McCain had a good opportunity to win this election but squandered it by his inconsistent and often incoherent message.  He hasn't shown anything approaching the quality of leadership we need at this point in time.  He's offered little in the way of concrete proposals and his demeanor has been angry and at times almost irrational. 

In contrast Obama has been consistent, calm and collected.  By keeping on message while McCain flops like a fish in the bottom of a boat, trying to find water, Obama came out looking like a leader.  McCain, to date, has not.

The problem with running with Ayers, etc, is that it's a non-starter.  Who cares?  When people are in the kind of financial pain they are at the moment they're going to go with the cantidate that they believe will ease it.  By wasting time on silliness McCain has lost any reasonable chance of getting in the Whitehouse. 

Barring a cataclysmic, game changing external event (Think alien invasion) Obama WILL take office in January. 

I'm not very happy about that.

But I'd be less happy with a McCain presidency this time around.

While that is accurate, Snark. I think you are allowing Obama to skate. Let me elucidate a bit. Hios common short answer is That's Guilt by association. It has been said, by men many times wiser than I, that you shall know the character of the man by the company that he keeps.

Ayers
Fleeger
Rev Wrong
Rezko
ACORN

To name just a few of his associations. I am sorry, Snark, the Senators comments simply don't wash, and i find them less than forthcoming. I see a pattern in his relationships, one which is not real positive and has NOT been fully addressed to explain why I should trust him with the most important job in this country. The company that Obama keeps tells me all I need to know about his character. The man laid down with dogs and got up with fleas.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
Quoting Snark:

Quote:


Barring a cataclysmic, game changing external event (Think alien invasion) Obama WILL take office in January. 

I'm not very happy about that.

But I'd be less happy with a McCain presidency this time around.

This looks like a missed opportunity, Skip. Had you showed him what you know instead of being pigheaded, you might have converted a voter. With him, you may have even moved a few more.

Then again, you could always change your tactics and show him. I wish you would because it isn't too late........ yet.

Dan:

That would be nice, but the thought police are busily trying to make sure that ideas are not permitted to be discussed here. This is not relevant to profiler it is is a political discussion so you are going to have opposing ideas and ideas you don't agree...so what. Not with the thought police, they abuse the reputation system in order to try and shut down ANY thought which opposes their own, so NO I am not going to go into the details.

Skip

Everything is permitted to be discussed here. And as long as we don't call each other names, no red arrows are founded. A different opinion is no reason for that. I have never given a red arrow based on an opinion that I did not like.

It looks to me that you try to get the easy way out Skip, I cannot see why quoting the relevant passages of Mr. Obamas book would bring you any bad reputation, on the contrary...

Sugar:

I am not going to reveal my listing, but I consider these foolish people who abuse the rep system to be no better than the extremists who make such vile comments on both sides of the political fence. if you want to hear my ideas and so forth fine, then get these idiots under control, whoever they are. Until then...

Here is one simple example, this post offends nor attacks anyone in this community... yet.

Sugar:

Have you read the books written by Obama (partcularly Dreams of My Father), obviously NOT, I have, those and more.

Let me make it even more clear , the man IS a Marxist.

Skip

So I will simply not play.

Skip

Quoting sugarjoe:

Quote:
Skip, let's just assume I have read the book, but I could not read out of it that he is a Marxist (btw what is you definition of this term?), could you please enlighten me and quote the relevant part or refer to a specific page or part of the book?

Just repeating what you have said previously does not make it a better point.

Sugar

I find it utterly fascinating that (1) someone asks another to provide proof of an assertion, (2) second person provides such proof, and the (3) original person claims it is untrue, misquoted, etc, and that the second person should provide MORE proof.  I doubt there is anything that would satisfy the original person because his opinion is so firmly rooted in his own agenda that he cannot accept the truth when confronted by it.  I'm not pointing my finger just at you, Sugar, because many of you other Obama-natics are taking the same tactic:  ignore, obfuscate and ridicule any view other than your own.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
While that is accurate, Snark. I think you are allowing Obama to skate. Let me elucidate a bit. Hios common short answer is That's Guilt by association. It has been said, by men many times wiser than I, that you shall know the character of the man by the company that he keeps.

Ayers
Fleeger
Rev Wrong
Rezko
ACORN

To name just a few of his associations. I am sorry, Snark, the Senators comments simply don't wash, and i find them less than forthcoming. I see a pattern in his relationships, one which is not real positive and has NOT been fully addressed to explain why I should trust him with the most important job in this country. The company that Obama keeps tells me all I need to know about his character. The man laid down with dogs and got up with fleas.

Skip

I'm not allowing him to skate Skip.  I'm just not assigning the weight to it that you do.  The depth and significance of those associations is questionable at best and the assertions being made are in a large part dishonest and being pushed by those with a dog in the hunt. 

Let's take Ayers for example:  Whatever he was 30 years ago he is now a player in educational reform.  The board that he and Obama sat on was in no way radical and enjoyed bipartisan support.

There is a grain of truth in the suggestion that you can tell a lot of about a man by the company he keeps.  But it's also said that politics makes strange bedfellows.  Any politician that wants to get things done will have to have the ability to work with people whose views are repugnant to them.  It's the way things are.  And of course McCain is not without his own murky associations in that regard.

I am certainly open to being convinced that McCain is the better man, but it's going to take moire than the vague allegations that the right are spinning in a desperate attempt to keep the presidency.

Any speculative concerns are outweighed in my mind by the real and demonstrable concerns I have with McCain's platform and prior performance.

McCain's temperment has long been questionable for real leadership and the campaign he has run has born it out.  He's all over the map and his demeanor is frankly angry.  That is NOT somehting I look for in a commander in chief.

His ideas on national security are in my opinion simply wrong.  He doesn't understand terrorism or how to fight it.  The current administration has completely failed in dealing with the problem and he promises to continue the same failed tactics.  (I'd be glad to take the specifics to another thread if ya want Skip.  I'm not afraid of the thought police and I won't red arrow ya.  )

Economically the deregualatory stance that conservatives push, while admirable in some ways, has gone too far.  The pendulum need to swing back.  We've had too many serious screwups lately.  (Enron, WorldCom, the current mess, etc)  There does need to be a measure of oversight.  It should not be onorous, but considering the fallout to the innocent that happens when CEOs get greedy it can't be non-existant.

In a similar vein, Bush has tipped the federal courts too far to one side.  I like my courts like I like my government: divided.  Liberal courts tend to invent rights for individuals and take them from corporations, while conservative courts invent them for corporations and remove them from the individual.  I'm not happy with either extreme.  I'd like to see middle ground.

And finally, I don't think Obama is in much of a position to implement any of these radical notions he's apparently got hiding in the closet.Democrats are unlikely to hit 60 in the senate and there are enough moderate democrats to keep anything truly crazy from passing.  Given the messes of the Bush administration it's going to be a long time before the next president can put down the brrom and get to work on their own agenda.

But I am willing to be convinced.  What does McCain bring to the table?

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I can only right now make one comment, Snark. While I understand what you are saying about the courts. I apply a totally different standard. We have something called the Constitution and it is the Courts job to interpret that document, NOT to legislate and create rights out of whole cloth for anyone which are not there, and in many cases cannot even be interpreted to be there...but that too is whole nuther story.

Snark, I am not worried about you having a membership in the thought police, you and have agreed and disagreed many times over the years and i always enjoy a discussion with you.

BTW, Let me repeat, I am no fan of John McCain, he was not my first or my second choice, BUT I believe him to be preferable to the alternative. You haven't lived until you have been the target of John's temper, but when all is said and done he listens, he may not agree but he listens.

Skip

Well Skip, the problem is that both sides legislate and create rights out of whole cloth.  The right has made a cottage industry out of their "activist judge" story but both sides are guilty in this.  (An "activist judge" is someone who disagrees with the speaker)

For my part a huge temper is a serious reason to disqualify a cantidate.  Some of McCain's behavior has been reprehensibe when his dander is up.  With Obama at least I believe that he'll think things through before making a decision. 

I have no confidence that either will come to the right one at the end, but angry decisions are almost NEVER right.  Sometimes when thought through you get to the right decision, even if for the wrong reasons.