Man, it's getting very ugly on the campaign trail now. The accusations made at Obama by Palin and McCain in their stump speechs are now echoed by jeers from the crowd of "terrorist" and even "kill him", and racial epithets shouted at black sound techs.Even sone Republicans are saying they need to counter the hate speech and reign in the retoric. Disgusting.
So...where's the defense of this? Palin is going to need to dig up some other 60 year old terrorist who has met Obama to cover this up.
BTW, I consider abuse of power to be among the worst skeleton's a politician could have in their closet. This is a very big deal, because the closest thing that any of the other three candidates have against them is Biden's terrible plagarism when he ran for president in 1988.
At this point, Palin is so toxic, that everyone talking about her running at the top of the ticket in 2012 should can their enthusiasm.
The election is over. Palin may not even remain as governor after this.
This is actually just what I expected to happen. Her firing Monaghan was perfectly legal. But her reasons were unethical. Not unlike the situation with firing the police chief of Wasilla and the library director.
Of course, the chatter on the right will be that this is a hatchet job by the Obama campaign. Which of course rings very hollow, considering the McCain campaign parachuted in to Alaska and took over the Governor's office and have repeatedly tried to block everything in this investigation. All of which were agreed upon by vote of bipartisan committees.
McCain is doing the right thing here, and all of his insane people at his rallies will have none of it.
This is going to get even worse and even wierder as the weeks go on though. At this point, since McCain is so far behind so early, I'm expecting there to be a serious attempt on Obama's life before the election.
A) Where are these people getting their news from? So what if he was?
A is somewhat rhetorical, as I have a pretty good idea.
But B is the real issue here. What percentage of this country is that xenophobic? Part of the reason I left Indiana was the excessive xenophobia. How is this country ever going to get on a decent path if a large percentage of American citizens are afraid of someone who isn't just like them?
A) Where are these people getting their news from? So what if he was?
A is somewhat rhetorical, as I have a pretty good idea.
But B is the real issue here. What percentage of this country is that xenophobic? Part of the reason I left Indiana was the excessive xenophobia. How is this country ever going to get on a decent path if a large percentage of American citizens are afraid of someone who isn't just like them?
I think there is something wired in peoples brains that causes them to prefer splitting groups into "insiders" and "outsiders" where insiders are anyone "like me". This made a lot of sense when you lived in a tribe and fought wars with other tribes over grazing land your animals needed if they were to feed you. It makes less sense today.
That said, I see three fundamental levels of societal xenophobia: condoned, accepted, and rejected. Here in America, the societal xenophobia is generally rejection even if it is accepted or condoned in some smaller pockets. Contrast that with a country, like Japan, where xenophobia as generally accepted. Yes these people are deluded, and yes they are dangerous, but they are a minority here. Even at that rally, you could hear some people chuckle when her argument was "He's an Arab".
FWIW, I think she meant "he's a Muslim", but she probably doesn't know there's a difference.
McCain is doing the right thing here, and all of his insane people at his rallies will have none of it.
This is the first time McCain has actually sounded like the McCain I liked in several months. It's ironic and pathetic that the respectable side of McCain gets boos.
This is the first time McCain has actually sounded like the McCain I liked in several months. It's ironic and pathetic that the respectable side of McCain gets boos.
I liked the old McCain as well, circa 2000. I don't know that waiting for the public/media to call him out on tolerating what (in many cases) borders on hate speech before condeming it constitutes "old McCain".
This is the first time McCain has actually sounded like the McCain I liked in several months. It's ironic and pathetic that the respectable side of McCain gets boos.
I liked the old McCain as well, circa 2000. I don't know that waiting for the public/media to call him out on tolerating what (in many cases) borders on hate speech before condeming it constitutes "old McCain".
It is hate speech, but I don't see this as the media "calling him out". He's there, in person with these hatemongers, and he's speaking straight to them telling them to knock it off. If he had a press release that said "McCain does not condone hate speech" instead, it would be the new McCain. But him telling his own supporters, in person, that they are wrong-headed rings of the old McCain. For me, it's too little too late, but it's still nice to see.
I'm not so sure McCain stepped up on his own accord. This has been happening for a while, even at McCain's own speeches from what I've seen in the news and online, and the story gained real traction in the media several days ago, but it wasn't until yesterday that McCain stepped up. I agree that it's nice to see and is more like the old McCain, but the way events unfolded I wonder if he would have allowed it to continue if the media hadn't run with it. I am still waiting to see if Palin tempers her speeches. Insults and innuendo and are pretty much all she has from what I've seen.
Kudos to David Gergen for helping this story get legs. He was on several shows over the last few days bringing this up.
Well, at least the republicans have clearly delineated the playing field.
If Obama has to answer for what every nutjob in the democratic party in Chicago did back in the 1960s, then we can clearly hold McCain responsible for all the people today in his crowd calling for assassinating Obama. So, McCain and the republican party clearly supports domestic terrorism.
I've had actual work to do for a while and haven't been able to check this out. I'm back for a day and thought I'd do a quick hit and run.
Here is a partial list of stuff I have been compiling. Suffice it to say that for the most part, any one of these issues would preclude me from voting for a candidate unless I thought his opponent was Hitler reincarnated. Again, this is a partial list.
OK, the interviewer here asked people in Harlem if they would vote for Obama or McCain. The interviewer reversed the two mens profiles. That is, he presented Obama as pro-life, "against" stem-cell research, etc. and even listed Sara Palin as Obama's running mate. He then gave McCain Obamas profile.
Wierder? I'll say. This guy's title is "Palin Makes Troopergate Assertions that Are Flatly False"
That statement is flatly false. This is nothing but an opinion piece and a poorly supported opinion at that. He says, "...but one cannot honestly make the argument that the report concluded that Palin was "cleared of any legal wrongdoing" or "any hint of unethical activity."
And although there is a lot of good stuff in it, a line I really like is this one: The Branchflower Report is a series of guesses and insupportable conclusions drawn by exactly one guy, and it hasn't been approved or adopted or endorsed by so much as a single sub-committee of the Alaska Legislature, much less any kind of commission, court, jury, or other proper adjudicatory body. It contains no new bombshells in terms of factual revelations. Rather, it's just Steve Branchflower's opinion — after being hired and directed by one of Gov. Palin's most vocal opponents and one of Alaska's staunchest Obama supporters — that he thinks Gov. Palin had, at worst, mixed motives for an action that even Branchflower admits she unquestionably had both (a) the complete right to perform and (b) other very good reasons to perform.
But read the whole article. The Branchflower report is actually pretty funny, when you get down to it's actual content.
Actually, some of this is covered in the "update" at the bottom of the Jake Tapper article.
It is funny how the dems bring up this silly kind of thing that even if it were true (which it isn't) it would mean a wrist slap, yet the Obama/acorn/voterfraud/Odingo/Ayers/Rezko/et-al nonsense that would get a normal person in prison or executed is waved off as no big deal.
I think that is why one may be seeing "hate speech" at McCain rallys.
Well, at least the republicans have clearly delineated the playing field.
If Obama has to answer for what every nutjob in the democratic party in Chicago did back in the 1960s, then we can clearly hold McCain responsible for all the people today in his crowd calling for assassinating Obama. So, McCain and the republican party clearly supports domestic terrorism.
How about if we just limit it to the guys each candidate knows personally and has worked with them?
Which is why I NEVER liked McCain. He was more Democrat than Republican or, more precisely, more socialist than conservative. I was not going to vote in this election until I actually read up on Obama.
I still think this election will be a rout for McCain. But it won't be because of McCain.
It is hate speech, but I don't see this as the media "calling him out". He's there, in person with these hatemongers, and he's speaking straight to them telling them to knock it off. If he had a press release that said "McCain does not condone hate speech" instead, it would be the new McCain. But him telling his own supporters, in person, that they are wrong-headed rings of the old McCain. For me, it's too little too late, but it's still nice to see.
It is hate speech, but I don't see this as the media "calling him out". He's there, in person with these hatemongers, and he's speaking straight to them telling them to knock it off. If he had a press release that said "McCain does not condone hate speech" instead, it would be the new McCain. But him telling his own supporters, in person, that they are wrong-headed rings of the old McCain. For me, it's too little too late, but it's still nice to see.
Use context Robroy. You are so out of touch right now. Yes, people in a crowd yelling "Kill Him" or saying "I don't trust him...he's Arab" is hate speech. But if you even read what you quoted, you'll notice I was defending your candidate.
I still think this election will be a rout for McCain. But it won't be because of McCain.
Yes, this election is going to be such a rout, that McCain is now defending North Carolina and Virginia...hoping that they don't vote Obama. IE, it's heading towards such a rout that McCain is absolutely desperate to reduce the margin of loss, let alone win this thing. He's given up on Michigan, he's given up on Pennsylvania, things are looking tenuous for McCain in Ohio and Florida.
Look, anything can happen, and it's foolish to call the election this far in advance, but the odds definitely favor Obama. He's got to be at least a 2-1 favorite to win this thing right now.
BTW, it's good to have you back. It was beginning to feel a little like freerepublic around here with you out (an echo chamber).
It is hate speech, but I don't see this as the media "calling him out". He's there, in person with these hatemongers, and he's speaking straight to them telling them to knock it off. If he had a press release that said "McCain does not condone hate speech" instead, it would be the new McCain. But him telling his own supporters, in person, that they are wrong-headed rings of the old McCain. For me, it's too little too late, but it's still nice to see.
Use context Robroy. You are so out of touch right now. Yes, people in a crowd yelling "Kill Him" or saying "I don't trust him...he's Arab" is hate speech. But if you even read what you quoted, you'll notice I was defending your candidate.
I still think this election will be a rout for McCain. But it won't be because of McCain.
Yes, this election is going to be such a rout, that McCain is now defending North Carolina and Virginia...hoping that they don't vote Obama. IE, it's heading towards such a rout that McCain is absolutely desperate to reduce the margin of loss, let alone win this thing. He's given up on Michigan, he's given up on Pennsylvania, things are looking tenuous for McCain in Ohio and Florida.
Look, anything can happen, and it's foolish to call the election this far in advance, but the odds definitely favor Obama. He's got to be at least a 2-1 favorite to win this thing right now.
BTW, it's good to have you back. It was beginning to feel a little like freerepublic around here with you out (an echo chamber).
I still trust the American people. I will say this: When we get bad leaders, I never blame the leaders. I always blame the voters.
I agree that "kill him" is what many would call "hate speech". Saying he is arab is just stating an opinion about his racial heritage.
BTW, unfortunately I will not be back for long. The same stuff that kept me away is ramping up again as I write this. I just don't have the time these days.
I will grant you that I may be out of touch. I was in a bar yesterday and was exposed to my first television in several months. I could not believe the political ads. Lies and missrepresentation on both sides. No wonder this country is so mind-bogglingly screwed up.
The good news is that the cultural reset button is being pressed for the whole world. It'll hurt at first, but it will be better in the long run.
I need to add that in the early 90's I used to tell my friends that, politically, I felt like a Jew in mid-1930-s Germany. Not that I feared for my life, but rather that I was so disconnected with the political views of so many people. I feel even moreso today, living in the Seattle area.
Some context, he's argued against the media for berating McCain over owning too many homes, and he's argued in the past that the media has been to quick to jump on Palin. In this article, he also points out that he thought Clinton should not have been elected due to character flaws. Also, he considers himself a single issue voter, where his issue is the war on terror (for it, not against it like so many peace-niks).
Oh, and it actual written text, rather than a YouTube video!
I agree that "kill him" is what many would call "hate speech". Saying he is arab is just stating an opinion about his racial heritage.
No, saying that the sheik of Saudi is Arab is stating a racial heritage fact. Saying that you won't vote for someone because you incorrectly think they are Arab is racism. IE. hate speech.
FWIW, I said you were out of touch because you couldn't even read the plain statement I wrote without reinterpreting it to more closely fit your predetermined world view.
The good news is that the cultural reset button is being pressed for the whole world. It'll hurt at first, but it will be better in the long run.
Which cultural reset button are we talking about here? Due to the financial collapse, or due to the shift away from dog-eat-dog capitalism towards a more European model? Or are we talking about Obama winning this election? Your statement is too wide open for me to tell.
The good news is that the cultural reset button is being pressed for the whole world. It'll hurt at first, but it will be better in the long run.
Which cultural reset button are we talking about here? Due to the financial collapse, or due to the shift away from dog-eat-dog capitalism towards a more European model? Or are we talking about Obama winning this election? Your statement is too wide open for me to tell.
Oh, and it actual written text, rather than a YouTube video!
This sort of comment fascinates me. I don't know exactly what it means. Is the written word more valuable than the spoken word? If I say, in a video, that George W Bush is a white male, and someone else, in an article says George W Bush is a black female, that suddenly it becomes more "believeable" that he is, in fact, a black female?
I personally do not like video presentations of information because you can gleen much more info from reading than from watching video or CNN et-al. But it in no way means the information in any video, simply by virtue of it being video, is somehow inaccurate, skewed, or otherwise compromised.
Comments
There's no need for it now. The McCain/Palin campaign have already released their own report that completely exonorates her!
In Fla., Palin Goes for the Rough Stuff as Audience Boos Obama
Obama 'death threat' during Palin speech
It's like I said a couple of days ago, white people are going to riot if he wins. Check out this video of the line at a McCain rally:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itEucdhf4Us&fmt=18
I actually love this, just because it's so ironic. I saw a clip on the Daily Show, about this part.
John Stewart's response. "So the crowd is against reading?"
I also think Palin should be given some props for knowing the name of a publication. I mean, a couple of weeks ago she couldn't do that.
Still, I just want to know what these people are so angry about.
http://dailysource.org/palin/148
Part of that makes me sick.
Part of me wonders how much of that is people acting for a camera.
But mostly it just reminds me that the vast majority of Americans are stupid.
The irony of a bunch of people going to a rally for McCain telling other people to get a job.... pretty amusing.
BTW, I consider abuse of power to be among the worst skeleton's a politician could have in their closet. This is a very big deal, because the closest thing that any of the other three candidates have against them is Biden's terrible plagarism when he ran for president in 1988.
At this point, Palin is so toxic, that everyone talking about her running at the top of the ticket in 2012 should can their enthusiasm.
This is actually just what I expected to happen. Her firing Monaghan was perfectly legal. But her reasons were unethical. Not unlike the situation with firing the police chief of Wasilla and the library director.
Of course, the chatter on the right will be that this is a hatchet job by the Obama campaign. Which of course rings very hollow, considering the McCain campaign parachuted in to Alaska and took over the Governor's office and have repeatedly tried to block everything in this investigation. All of which were agreed upon by vote of bipartisan committees.
This video just makes me sad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf6YKOkfFsE
McCain is doing the right thing here, and all of his insane people at his rallies will have none of it.
This is going to get even worse and even wierder as the weeks go on though. At this point, since McCain is so far behind so early, I'm expecting there to be a serious attempt on Obama's life before the election.
It's so sad that The Daily show and Colbert are the most relevant news shows on the air right now.
A) Where are these people getting their news from?
A is somewhat rhetorical, as I have a pretty good idea.
But B is the real issue here. What percentage of this country is that xenophobic? Part of the reason I left Indiana was the excessive xenophobia. How is this country ever going to get on a decent path if a large percentage of American citizens are afraid of someone who isn't just like them?
I think there is something wired in peoples brains that causes them to prefer splitting groups into "insiders" and "outsiders" where insiders are anyone "like me". This made a lot of sense when you lived in a tribe and fought wars with other tribes over grazing land your animals needed if they were to feed you. It makes less sense today.
That said, I see three fundamental levels of societal xenophobia: condoned, accepted, and rejected. Here in America, the societal xenophobia is generally rejection even if it is accepted or condoned in some smaller pockets. Contrast that with a country, like Japan, where xenophobia as generally accepted. Yes these people are deluded, and yes they are dangerous, but they are a minority here. Even at that rally, you could hear some people chuckle when her argument was "He's an Arab".
FWIW, I think she meant "he's a Muslim", but she probably doesn't know there's a difference.
This is the first time McCain has actually sounded like the McCain I liked in several months. It's ironic and pathetic that the respectable side of McCain gets boos.
I liked the old McCain as well, circa 2000. I don't know that waiting for the public/media to call him out on tolerating what (in many cases) borders on hate speech before condeming it constitutes "old McCain".
It is hate speech, but I don't see this as the media "calling him out". He's there, in person with these hatemongers, and he's speaking straight to them telling them to knock it off. If he had a press release that said "McCain does not condone hate speech" instead, it would be the new McCain. But him telling his own supporters, in person, that they are wrong-headed rings of the old McCain. For me, it's too little too late, but it's still nice to see.
Kudos to David Gergen for helping this story get legs. He was on several shows over the last few days bringing this up.
In other news, Palin booed at a hockey game. They turn up the music to drown out the boos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TgDanmWkg
If Obama has to answer for what every nutjob in the democratic party in Chicago did back in the 1960s, then we can clearly hold McCain responsible for all the people today in his crowd calling for assassinating Obama. So, McCain and the republican party clearly supports domestic terrorism.
Here is a partial list of stuff I have been compiling. Suffice it to say that for the most part, any one of these issues would preclude me from voting for a candidate unless I thought his opponent was Hitler reincarnated. Again, this is a partial list.
Fannie at black caucus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0&NR=1
Ties to Ayers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-45A6I-N5I
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/Barac ... 31658.html
Ties to Kenya unrest
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QcpdUtx ... re=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1P_P8lBCsE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpvLV3d1Eq4&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdtirp4X ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpvLV3d1Eq4
IBD on obama's campaign contributions.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticle ... 2698295150
Factcheck.org is funded by Annenburg
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2100735/posts
http://hickeysite.blogspot.com/2008/09/ ... z-and.html
Hilarious SNL routine.
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/ ... ut/727521/
aig MESS
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2100840/posts
Democrats supporting f&f
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36nwCSYUM
REMEMBER:
"Wright"
"Odinga"
"Ayers"
"Alinsky"
"Pfleger"
"Marshall"
"Farrakhan"
"ACORN"
"Wade Rathke"
"Judge a man by the company he keeps!"
Obama and Acorn back to 1992
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7203
Check this out and then click on the video at the Acorn at the bottom and the acorn in the middle.
http://justsaynodeal.com/acorn.html
OK, the interviewer here asked people in Harlem if they would vote for Obama or McCain. The interviewer reversed the two mens profiles. That is, he presented Obama as pro-life, "against" stem-cell research, etc. and even listed Sara Palin as Obama's running mate. He then gave McCain Obamas profile.
The results are hilarious! Again, it goes to prove that in a democracy you get the government you deserve.
http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal ... 100108.mp3
Factcheck not so factual: A lot of people are using factcheck.org only to find out that it is an Annenberg organization.
http://www.patterico.com/2008/09/23/unm ... nt-record/
And who is Annenberg?:
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/pu ... 3111.shtml
It is the organization Ayers and Obama worked together on regarding the now infamous $50mm.
That statement is flatly false. This is nothing but an opinion piece and a poorly supported opinion at that. He says, "...but one cannot honestly make the argument that the report concluded that Palin was "cleared of any legal wrongdoing" or "any hint of unethical activity."
Actually, yes one can.
Here is a better opinion piece on the report here: http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/1 ... 1804d9fbc1
And although there is a lot of good stuff in it, a line I really like is this one: The Branchflower Report is a series of guesses and insupportable conclusions drawn by exactly one guy, and it hasn't been approved or adopted or endorsed by so much as a single sub-committee of the Alaska Legislature, much less any kind of commission, court, jury, or other proper adjudicatory body. It contains no new bombshells in terms of factual revelations. Rather, it's just Steve Branchflower's opinion — after being hired and directed by one of Gov. Palin's most vocal opponents and one of Alaska's staunchest Obama supporters — that he thinks Gov. Palin had, at worst, mixed motives for an action that even Branchflower admits she unquestionably had both (a) the complete right to perform and (b) other very good reasons to perform.
But read the whole article. The Branchflower report is actually pretty funny, when you get down to it's actual content.
Actually, some of this is covered in the "update" at the bottom of the Jake Tapper article.
It is funny how the dems bring up this silly kind of thing that even if it were true (which it isn't) it would mean a wrist slap, yet the Obama/acorn/voterfraud/Odingo/Ayers/Rezko/et-al nonsense that would get a normal person in prison or executed is waved off as no big deal.
I think that is why one may be seeing "hate speech" at McCain rallys.
Just sayin...
REMEMBER:
"Wright"
"Odinga"
"Ayers"
"Alinsky"
"Pfleger"
"Marshall"
"Farrakhan"
"ACORN"
"Wade Rathke"
"Judge a man by the company he keeps!"
Which is why I NEVER liked McCain. He was more Democrat than Republican or, more precisely, more socialist than conservative. I was not going to vote in this election until I actually read up on Obama.
I still think this election will be a rout for McCain. But it won't be because of McCain.
Hate speech?
Hate speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI
Use context Robroy. You are so out of touch right now. Yes, people in a crowd yelling "Kill Him" or saying "I don't trust him...he's Arab" is hate speech. But if you even read what you quoted, you'll notice I was defending your candidate.
Yes, this election is going to be such a rout, that McCain is now defending North Carolina and Virginia...hoping that they don't vote Obama. IE, it's heading towards such a rout that McCain is absolutely desperate to reduce the margin of loss, let alone win this thing. He's given up on Michigan, he's given up on Pennsylvania, things are looking tenuous for McCain in Ohio and Florida.
Look, anything can happen, and it's foolish to call the election this far in advance, but the odds definitely favor Obama. He's got to be at least a 2-1 favorite to win this thing right now.
BTW, it's good to have you back. It was beginning to feel a little like freerepublic around here with you out (an echo chamber).
I agree that "kill him" is what many would call "hate speech". Saying he is arab is just stating an opinion about his racial heritage.
BTW, unfortunately I will not be back for long. The same stuff that kept me away is ramping up again as I write this. I just don't have the time these days.
I will grant you that I may be out of touch. I was in a bar yesterday and was exposed to my first television in several months. I could not believe the political ads. Lies and missrepresentation on both sides. No wonder this country is so mind-bogglingly screwed up.
The good news is that the cultural reset button is being pressed for the whole world. It'll hurt at first, but it will be better in the long run.
I need to add that in the early 90's I used to tell my friends that, politically, I felt like a Jew in mid-1930-s Germany. Not that I feared for my life, but rather that I was so disconnected with the political views of so many people. I feel even moreso today, living in the Seattle area.
But being in the majority does not make you right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVRXXbU-z7U
Some context, he's argued against the media for berating McCain over owning too many homes, and he's argued in the past that the media has been to quick to jump on Palin. In this article, he also points out that he thought Clinton should not have been elected due to character flaws. Also, he considers himself a single issue voter, where his issue is the war on terror (for it, not against it like so many peace-niks).
Oh, and it actual written text, rather than a YouTube video!
No, saying that the sheik of Saudi is Arab is stating a racial heritage fact. Saying that you won't vote for someone because you incorrectly think they are Arab is racism. IE. hate speech.
FWIW, I said you were out of touch because you couldn't even read the plain statement I wrote without reinterpreting it to more closely fit your predetermined world view.
Which cultural reset button are we talking about here? Due to the financial collapse, or due to the shift away from dog-eat-dog capitalism towards a more European model? Or are we talking about Obama winning this election? Your statement is too wide open for me to tell.
War. And I don't mean Iraq or Afghanistan.
This isn't important to me anymore, but it is interesting nonetheless. Especially the meat of the article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html
I personally do not like video presentations of information because you can gleen much more info from reading than from watching video or CNN et-al. But it in no way means the information in any video, simply by virtue of it being video, is somehow inaccurate, skewed, or otherwise compromised.