the first stone? what?
Did she not say "the gloves are coming off"? That would suggest to me that she wants the cold war of words to become a hot one. There's been little or no potshots of real note from official sources up to now (on either side).usmarine wrote:
the first stone? what?
or she is bringing up something the media has "forgotten" about?????? wonder why he wasnt asked about that on his NBC interviews. hmmmmmm
So we're in agreement that this election is really Biden vs. Palin.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Obama is black and there is a 99.9% he'll get shot. Not to mention his name sounds like a terrorist.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
but McCain is old and is 90% likely to die as soon as he's elected.usmarine wrote:
oh jesus. you are a mental case. there have been WAY more palin topics and she is only the VP
Didn't you say you were voting for Obama?usmarine wrote:
or she is bringing up something the media has "forgotten" about?????? wonder why he wasnt asked about that on his NBC interviews. hmmmmmm
...why that would make you a terrorist by her reasoning, would it not?
she didnt call him a terrorist ffs. she said he was assosiated with him. which he was. that is a fact. whats the problem?Braddock wrote:
Didn't you say you were voting for Obama?usmarine wrote:
or she is bringing up something the media has "forgotten" about?????? wonder why he wasnt asked about that on his NBC interviews. hmmmmmm
...why that would make you a terrorist by her reasoning, would it not?
When he was, 9?usmarine wrote:
she didnt call him a terrorist ffs. she said he was assosiated with him. which he was. that is a fact. whats the problem?
And you were associated with Obama as being a possible supporter of his. What's the problem?usmarine wrote:
she didnt call him a terrorist ffs. she said he was assosiated with him. which he was. that is a fact. whats the problem?Braddock wrote:
Didn't you say you were voting for Obama?usmarine wrote:
or she is bringing up something the media has "forgotten" about?????? wonder why he wasnt asked about that on his NBC interviews. hmmmmmm
...why that would make you a terrorist by her reasoning, would it not?
what? they served on a board together. what are you talking about?TheAussieReaper wrote:
When he was, 9?usmarine wrote:
she didnt call him a terrorist ffs. she said he was assosiated with him. which he was. that is a fact. whats the problem?
are you blind? can you read? people are saying she is lying. but she is not. thats what i am talking about. get it thru that skull of yours.Braddock wrote:
And you were associated with Obama as being a possible supporter of his. What's the problem?
I'm not saying she is lying, I am saying I don't care.usmarine wrote:
are you blind? can you read? people are saying she is lying. but she is not. thats what i am talking about. get it thru that skull of yours.Braddock wrote:
And you were associated with Obama as being a possible supporter of his. What's the problem?
Obama is not a terrorist by association... and neither are you, that was my point.
who is saying he is?Braddock wrote:
Obama is not a terrorist by association... and neither are you, that was my point.
Obama, who was born in 1961, has denounced Ayers' conduct and has pointed out that he was a child during Ayers' radical years.usmarine wrote:
what? they served on a board together. what are you talking about?TheAussieReaper wrote:
When he was, 9?usmarine wrote:
she didnt call him a terrorist ffs. she said he was assosiated with him. which he was. that is a fact. whats the problem?
The radical Weather Underground Organization that claimed responsibility for a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974.
This makes Obama how old during this time?
The former Weatherman, William Ayers, now holds the position of distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Although never convicted of any crime, he told the New York Times in September 2001, "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."
Is Obama guilt by association now?
And as for being members of a board together, that was an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, they both served on between 1999 and 2002. Hardly what I'd call a terrorist organisation, but see into that what you will.
Is there anything here that raises questions about Obama's judgment or is this just another example of guilt by association?
Should we look more into the huge $200 contribution to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001 from Ayers?
That is what the Republican party is trying to assert with this story usmarine, it's called 'implying'.usmarine wrote:
who is saying he is?Braddock wrote:
Obama is not a terrorist by association... and neither are you, that was my point.
...a bit like the way FOX news think that if they say the words "terrorism" and "Obama" in the same sentence enough times that people will begin to associate the two.
never convicted...lol yay. and OJ was innocent.
please post what he said on 9/11. just for fair and balance reasons.
please post what he said on 9/11. just for fair and balance reasons.
oh so you are putting words in their mouths? kind of like obama showing pics of mccain with bush? not implying eh?Braddock wrote:
That is what the Republican party is trying to assert with this story usmarine, it's called 'implying'.usmarine wrote:
who is saying he is?Braddock wrote:
Obama is not a terrorist by association... and neither are you, that was my point.
...a bit like the way FOX news think that if they say the words "terrorism" and "Obama" in the same sentence enough times that people will begin to associate the two.
Except its fact that McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. Yes it is fact.usmarine wrote:
oh so you are putting words in their mouths? kind of like obama showing pics of mccain with bush? not implying eh?Braddock wrote:
That is what the Republican party is trying to assert with this story usmarine, it's called 'implying'.usmarine wrote:
who is saying he is?
...a bit like the way FOX news think that if they say the words "terrorism" and "Obama" in the same sentence enough times that people will begin to associate the two.
I'm not putting words in her mouth... she is trying to put ideas in my head. There's a difference usmarine.usmarine wrote:
oh so you are putting words in their mouths? kind of like obama showing pics of mccain with bush? not implying eh?Braddock wrote:
That is what the Republican party is trying to assert with this story usmarine, it's called 'implying'.usmarine wrote:
who is saying he is?
...a bit like the way FOX news think that if they say the words "terrorism" and "Obama" in the same sentence enough times that people will begin to associate the two.
You are right about the McCain/Bush implications, that is exactly what the Dems are trying are to do. It was even apparent the other day in Biden's closing speech against Palin where he rounded up by bringing everything back to Bush. The only thing is McCain actually is a member of the Republican party (albeit a 'maverick' one) and the party as a whole must take some blame when it fails... God knows the right loves to equate all Democrat candidates with the Carter era whenever possible.
Seven years ago, Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, issued a statement to his local newspaper the Hyde Park Herald. It was published on September 19th 2001 and recently reprinted in the New Yorker magazine.usmarine wrote:
please post what he said on 9/11. just for fair and balance reasons.
Feel free to see what Ayers said also. Although it's of less significance to this election....State Senator Barack Obama, September 19th 2001: wrote:
"Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved families, I must also hope that we as a nation draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy. Certain immediate lessons are clear, and we must act upon those lessons decisively. We need to step up security at our airports. We must reexamine the effectiveness of our intelligence networks. And we must be resolute in identifying the perpetrators of these heinous acts and dismantling their organizations of destruction.
"We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.
"We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe-children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers … de_in_2001
and obama like 46%. so obama is almost half bush.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Except its fact that McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. Yes it is fact.
hey aussie....i meant post what ayers said on 9/11. it is significant to your innocent assertions.
90% or 46%... I know which one I'd prefer.usmarine wrote:
and obama like 46%. so obama is almost half bush.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Except its fact that McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. Yes it is fact.
not if you really break down the votes and not just spit out numbers. but i reckon you have looked at that already yes?Braddock wrote:
90% or 46%... I know which one I'd prefer.usmarine wrote:
and obama like 46%. so obama is almost half bush.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Except its fact that McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. Yes it is fact.
Yeah I know it's the same in the UK, but no way near as bad.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
If you've been watching the recent "Conferences" of the 3 main parties here (Labour, Conservative, Lib Dems) you'd see that they do the same shit. They even continue to do it in the Commons once everything is done and dusted. It's like that in alot of democratic countries. Especially because of the mass 24 hour media, the electronic age and all that. Where information can be retrieved about something in an instant. It's just that it's worst in the US, by quite a margin.Mint Sauce wrote:
American election campaigns make me laugh. The parties never actually concentrate on their own strengths, and introduce them to the public, only plug their opponents weaknesses and take things out of context (to the negative).
It's just how shit is, and will be.
Also it's funny how all the Palin fanboys are now crying "enough" but it was never enough when they started all those Obama threads. I'm just saying, it's silly. Like I said before I think the gutter politics is bullshit, but I had to make that point.
#rekt
oh ya? i bet if the world cared and spent tons of time dissecting it, you may think otherwise.Mint Sauce wrote:
Yeah I know it's the same in the UK, but no way near as bad.