HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Sept 15, 2008 13:55:57 GMT -5
Obama has however steeped himself in radical, racially divisive politics and held long, close associations with such paragons as Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, so he is perfectly suited to represent the extreme, radical left and their many anti-American causes. What an a*$hole comment to make. Before you call Reverend Wright (and Obama by association) anti-American, read this (I posted it before, but I'm sure you didn't bother to look): www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0404wrightapr03,0,92000.story We haven't said that Sarah Palin will represent anti-American causes because of her association with the Alaskan National Party. I don't call Bush or Cheney "anti-American" because they each failed to serve our country at its time in need (unless you count Bush's debatable service protecting Alabama from the Vietcong). It's people like you that divide our country by making statements like this. Both candidates care about our country- both want to make our country better. The debate is over HOW each wants to do so. GROW UP - hifi too
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Sept 15, 2008 13:58:53 GMT -5
Obama has however steeped himself in radical, racially divisive politics and held long, close associations with such paragons as Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, so he is perfectly suited to represent the extreme, radical left and their many anti-American causes. What ^^^ said! Yes, because there's nothing more un-American than running for freaking president. Seriously, you guys are very close to becoming a parody of yourselves. And this will be the only time I ever do this, but I think I speak for all the board's conservatives when I say "HiFi, you're not helping."
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 15, 2008 14:04:44 GMT -5
Obama has however steeped himself in radical, racially divisive politics and held long, close associations with such paragons as Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, so he is perfectly suited to represent the extreme, radical left and their many anti-American causes. What an a*$hole comment to make. Before you call Reverend Wright (and Obama by association) anti-American, read this (I posted it before, but I'm sure you didn't bother to look): www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0404wrightapr03,0,92000.story We haven't said that Sarah Palin will represent anti-American causes because of her association with the Alaskan National Party. I don't call Bush or Cheney "anti-American" because they each failed to serve our country at it's time in need (unless you count Bush's debatable service protecting Alabama from the Vietcong). It's people like you that divide our country by making statements like this. Both candidates care about our country- both want to make our country better. The debate is over HOW each wants to do so. GROW UP. Sorry, but your argument doesn't fly. The fact that you personally did or didn't call a candidate some particular name is irrelevant. Initially, your premise is flawed, because Bush was heavily criticized 4 years ago for his service with the Texas National Guard -- rightly or wrongly isn't the point. It was a major selling point that John Kerry's camp tried to make, juxtaposing it with Kerry's service in Vietnam. Secondly, there is zero doubt that Wright and Ayers have made numerous anti-American comments. There is also zero doubt that Obama had significant voluntary relationships with them and has at times praised them for certain things. That is fair game. You can choose to ignore it if you want. You can decide that other positives outweigh those negatives, but to essentially deny such relationships is absurd. Now how much transitive effect there is to Obama is debatable, but once again to suggest that anyone who finds any is somehow deluded is again absurd. To then compound that by calling it an a$$hole comment is grounds for being put in time out.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 15, 2008 14:05:12 GMT -5
Lighten up Francises!!!
It was a joke. Perhaps a poor attempt to expose the inanity of the argument about McCain's ability to use a computer.
We are so very, very touchy.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 15, 2008 14:10:44 GMT -5
Lighten up Francises!!! It was a joke. Perhaps a poor attempt to expose the inanity of the argument about McCain's ability to use a computer. We are so very, very touchy. I agree. You'd think their idea of a political campaign is limited to holding hands and singing Kum Ba Yah.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Sept 15, 2008 14:25:45 GMT -5
Lighten up Francises!!! It was a joke. Perhaps a poor attempt to expose the inanity of the argument about McCain's ability to use a computer. We are so very, very touchy. Obama is going to advocate anti-American causes... how funny.... not. My point hifi, which you obviously missed, is that you don't see the Obama supporters on this board saying the Palin will be a prime candidate to advocate anti-American causes while in office or that Bush and Cheney would not look out for the interests of the country because they failed to serve during the Vietnam war. Sure, these items were brought up in 2004- in the context of their past actions. However, no one accused them of being anti-American or said that they would advocate anti-American interests. To say Obama is anti-American because he attended Wright's church (amazing that you CONTINUE to bring this up as an issue- he's been a pastor there for decades and you and Fox News pick 3 sermons he gave to summarily condemn him as anti-American. I would argue he's more of a patriot than all of us) is not political discourse, it's inflammatory and disingenuous.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 15, 2008 14:33:54 GMT -5
I would argue he's more of a patriot than all of us Well, that shows your true colors. Think Obama would make the same statement?
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Sept 15, 2008 14:47:49 GMT -5
Is that boston globe article really accurate? I'm more disturbed by the fact that it paints a picture of McCain as almost completely helpless on his own? That he can't comb his hair or tie his shoes paints a picture of a man completely dependent on other for day to day activities. Logic would assume he will only become more and more dependent on others for help. prior to reading this i didn't really take seriously issues of his health and possibility of him dying in office. But this makes him sound worse off than he appears on TV. Physical impairment does not mean mental impairment as McCain clearly is fine currently, but this could change over the next 4 or 8 years. I'm not really trying to make an arguement against McCain, I'm more looking for someone to reassure me that McCain is healthy enough to serve out his term as president. Not that i think he will die but the likely hood of him getting sick or having his health deteriorates seems scary after reading that article.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 15, 2008 14:53:34 GMT -5
Nyr320, I didn't miss your point; rather I think you missed mine. The "anti-American" label wasn't (at least by me, or by others here that I have seen) used in reference to Obama, but to Wright. You say it was "3 sermons in 30 years." I have heard otherwise, but in fairness, I haven't had the interest nor the time to delve through some 1500+ messages from the pulpit. And that is only factoring 1 a week, not more. In any case, regardless of how many, even 1 is too many. It is absolutely unfathomable to watch Wright villainizing America. It is even worse to see and hear those hordes of people cheering the deaths of 5000 innocent people. People talk about a "litmus" test for this or that area of support. Typically the term is applied to abortion views more than other topics. In my mind however, an incident such as this is strike one, two and three. But the kicker is that Obama decides to wait until he is in the middle of a Presidential run some nearly 7 years later and then decides that he can't attend this church. Why? Not because all of a sudden, he came to realize what every other individual who has been exposed to Wright's messages already knows, but rather because it will hurt his electability. Rather than trying to gloss over that issue because you want your guy to win, at least try to look at it from my point of view. I would think that at the very, very least you would have to admit that it was poor judgment by Wright. Also, I would think you would have to admit that it was poor judgment by Obama to continue associating with Wright. Obviously Obama admits that much, and thus severed ties. Along that line of thinking, why should it take nearly 7 years to arrive at that conculsion? I think the answer is quite clear, but if you have another suggestion I would like to hear it.
On Edit: I meant to mention this. You specifically said something like "and then Fox News finds 3 sermons ..." What is your point there? You mention Fox for a reason. The obvious reason would be to call some degree of doubt into the validity or accuracy of the footage, but that clearly isn't the case. So why mention Fox news in that regard? The reason is that such footage which reflects negatively on the democratic candidate tends to be buried among most of the mainstream media. Your comment alone is a verification of what we all really know and that is that there is a liberal slant to the mainstream media.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Sept 15, 2008 14:56:08 GMT -5
I would argue he's more of a patriot than all of us Well, that shows your true colors. Think Obama would make the same statement? I'm saying he's more of a patriot than those of us debating the election on HoyaTalk. I think if Obama knew those of us participating in the HoyaTalk discussion, he could make the same statement. He(Wright)'s more of a patriot than any of the posters in this discussion, unless there's someone on this board who served our country in the military that I don't know about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2008 15:23:54 GMT -5
Hifi: 2,974 people died on Sept. 11 - not 5,000.
If you're going to rail on people about their opinions, at least get your own facts straight.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 15, 2008 18:30:54 GMT -5
Nyr, it seems like you just said what you said you would not say.
"We haven't said that Sarah Palin will represent anti-American causes because of her association with the Alaskan National Party. I don't call Bush or Cheney "anti-American" because they each failed to serve our country at its time in need (unless you count Bush's debatable service protecting Alabama from the Vietcong)."
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 16, 2008 9:11:40 GMT -5
Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh........ Oops: "'If we're going to ask questions about, you know, who has been promulgating negative ads that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand, I think I win that contest pretty handily,' Obama said."abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5803765&page=1 ;D
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 16, 2008 10:22:59 GMT -5
Sorry Cam. I put the wrong number. I meant to put 3000, rounding it. Either way, I don't think that changes the point. Do you really think that since it was "only" ....
Nevermind. I don't think either of us wants to go there. It doesn't change the point one iota.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2008 11:44:50 GMT -5
Sorry Cam. I put the wrong number. I meant to put 3000, rounding it. Either way, I don't think that changes the point. Do you really think that since it was "only" .... Nevermind. I don't think either of us wants to go there. It doesn't change the point one iota. You're right, and that was certainly not my point.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Sept 16, 2008 12:50:16 GMT -5
Nyr, it seems like you just said what you said you would not say. "We haven't said that Sarah Palin will represent anti-American causes because of her association with the Alaskan National Party. I don't call Bush or Cheney "anti-American" because they each failed to serve our country at its time in need (unless you count Bush's debatable service protecting Alabama from the Vietcong)." What I was trying to say is that Democrats and those on this board don't take the extra step of saying that because this information, these people are anti-American or they are going to advance anti-American policies.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 16, 2008 13:17:37 GMT -5
Nyr, it seems like you just said what you said you would not say. "We haven't said that Sarah Palin will represent anti-American causes because of her association with the Alaskan National Party. I don't call Bush or Cheney "anti-American" because they each failed to serve our country at its time in need (unless you count Bush's debatable service protecting Alabama from the Vietcong)." But what your post actually did was to infer that Sarah Palin was associated with an anti-American Alaskan National Party and that Bush and Cheney are anti-American because "they each failed to serve our country at its time in need", including Bush's non-service during the Vietnam war. It's an old trick of pretending you are not saying something by actually saying it.What I was trying to say is that Democrats and those on this board don't take the extra step of saying that because this information, these people are anti-American or they are going to advance anti-American policies.
|
|
|
Post by PushyGuyFanClub on Sept 16, 2008 15:26:22 GMT -5
Smart move out of both camps today changing the topic of the first debate from domestic and economic policy (economic policy, particularly in light of recent events, being an enormous and glaring weakness in both camps) to foreign policy (where both can offer some strong talking points). Let's hope they do some studying up over the next month when it does come time to talk shop about the economy.
We've been laughing here at the office imitating the speeches we've heard recently. I think somebody actually said -- not pointing fingers -- that the economy needs to be "better, stronger, and more agile." That was met with retort that "We will make sure this never happens again."
Great stuff, guys.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 16, 2008 16:53:26 GMT -5
Smart move out of both camps today changing the topic of the first debate from domestic and economic policy (economic policy, particularly in light of recent events, being an enormous and glaring weakness in both camps) to foreign policy (where both can offer some strong talking points). They did that, really? It's official. None of the four are ready to be President! PushyGuyFanClub '08: "We may not understand it, but it's economics we can believe in." OK, SecTreas at the very least. ;D
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Sept 16, 2008 22:38:53 GMT -5
no matter who's side you're on this is hilarious.
|
|