Do you consider secessionist pro-American or anti-American? How can a VP candidate for the U.S. be supportive of anti-Americanism and be married to someone with those sentaments who has never publically denied them?
I stated earlier that based solely on her husband's membership in a state secessionist party I wouldn't consider her as my running mate for VP of the U.S. It speaks to the lack of judgment on McCain's part. Palin’s sole value to him is her gender and her down homesy-ness anyway.
Oh, and by his very nature a state secessionist is at the very least not pro-American.
Quote:
If Michelle Obama belonged to a pary that said she wanted Illinois to be a Country and Barack spoke at one of their conventions (although a nonmember)
Are you saying that Foxnews would not be reporting that in a negative light saying they are anti-American?
Perhaps Fox would…But would the rest of the media be doing the same? Maybe the rest of the media would simply ignore this or explain it away. Perhaps it would be treated similarly to Palin’s husband’s involvement with the Alaskan secessionist party.
Quote:
It's crazy that the McCain Campaign has been charging people with sedition and declaring areas of the country anti-America when his VP candidate associates with these types and is married to one.
Well, it isn’t clear that she associates with these people today or the extent of her association with them in past beyond speaking at one of their rallies; or her husband’s association with them beyond being someone who simply joined and wasn’t an active member.
Quote:
Where is McCain's judgement?
He picked Palin as his running mate, which speaks volumes about his judgment IMO. I suspect he didn’t do too much research into her background; he looked principally at her as someone who could get him votes because of her gender and ability to appeal to lower middle class and working class whites.
Quote:
WHere is Palin's patriotism?
Right where it was before I guess. We really don’t know if she ever believed Alaska should be an independent country or if she believes this today. She’s probably patriotic, but that doesn’t automatically qualify one for VP running mate.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Wed 22 Oct 2008 16:59 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
The point was to make the sitatuations as similar as possible.
Ayers is not the same issue so I made a hypothetical situation similar to Palin's with the Obama's.
It is not convenient it is called comparing apples to apples.
Was Palin's husband involved with the blowing up of the Capitol and the Pentagon, and other public facilities, killing several people?????? Ayers is not only a terrorist, but a murderer.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 22 Oct 2008 17:18 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
The point was to make the sitatuations as similar as possible.
Ayers is not the same issue so I made a hypothetical situation similar to Palin's with the Obama's.
It is not convenient it is called comparing apples to apples.
Was Palin's husband involved with the blowing up of the Capitol and the Pentagon, and other public facilities, killing several people?????? Ayers is not only a terrorist, but a murderer.
It is amazing to me that you can not admit that Palin's husband has at the least been involved in traitorous activity.
Obama did not blow up anything. Ayers tried and did not succeed when Obama was 8 years old. Ayers was also never convicted of any crimes in relation to terrorism, although it is obvious, by his own admission he advocated it.
Ayer's is everything you said, or was.
Obama is not married to Ayers and Obama did not attent Weather Underground meetings in Elementary School in Hawaii...I don't think.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 22 Oct 2008 17:19 Post subject:
G-Man wrote:
Quote:
Do you consider secessionist pro-American or anti-American? How can a VP candidate for the U.S. be supportive of anti-Americanism and be married to someone with those sentaments who has never publically denied them?
I stated earlier that based solely on her husband's membership in a state secessionist party I wouldn't consider her as my running mate for VP of the U.S. It speaks to the lack of judgment on McCain's part. Palin’s sole value to him is her gender and her down homesy-ness anyway.
Oh, and by his very nature a state secessionist is at the very least not pro-American.
Quote:
If Michelle Obama belonged to a pary that said she wanted Illinois to be a Country and Barack spoke at one of their conventions (although a nonmember)
Are you saying that Foxnews would not be reporting that in a negative light saying they are anti-American?
Perhaps Fox would…But would the rest of the media be doing the same? Maybe the rest of the media would simply ignore this or explain it away. Perhaps it would be treated similarly to Palin’s husband’s involvement with the Alaskan secessionist party.
Quote:
It's crazy that the McCain Campaign has been charging people with sedition and declaring areas of the country anti-America when his VP candidate associates with these types and is married to one.
Well, it isn’t clear that she associates with these people today or the extent of her association with them in past beyond speaking at one of their rallies; or her husband’s association with them beyond being someone who simply joined and wasn’t an active member.
Quote:
Where is McCain's judgement?
He picked Palin as his running mate, which speaks volumes about his judgment IMO. I suspect he didn’t do too much research into her background; he looked principally at her as someone who could get him votes because of her gender and ability to appeal to lower middle class and working class whites.
Quote:
WHere is Palin's patriotism?
Right where it was before I guess. We really don’t know if she ever believed Alaska should be an independent country or if she believes this today. She’s probably patriotic, but that doesn’t automatically qualify one for VP running mate.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Wed 22 Oct 2008 17:39 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
It is amazing to me that you can not admit that Palin's husband has at the least been involved in traitorous activity.
Obama did not blow up anything. Ayers tried and did not succeed when Obama was 8 years old. Ayers was also never convicted of any crimes in relation to terrorism, although it is obvious, by his own admission he advocated it.
Ayer's is everything you said, or was.
Obama is not married to Ayers and Obama did not attent Weather Underground meetings in Elementary School in Hawaii...I don't think.
If John McCain had the same sort of association with the scum who were apart of the gang who blew up the Church in Birmingham in '63, do you honestly think he would be in the race still, particularly if the slime ball did not repent?????
I think seccesionist movements would be protected by the Constitution so as long they do not act upon their beliefs. I do have a problem with Palin's husband, but have a bigger problem with Ayers and Wright. Obama didn't leave that church until the primary season. Are you to tell me he didn't know what that church was about, Please. Ant politician who was a member of a church that spoke of Blacks negatively, their political careers would be finished.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 22 Oct 2008 17:58 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
It is amazing to me that you can not admit that Palin's husband has at the least been involved in traitorous activity.
Obama did not blow up anything. Ayers tried and did not succeed when Obama was 8 years old. Ayers was also never convicted of any crimes in relation to terrorism, although it is obvious, by his own admission he advocated it.
Ayer's is everything you said, or was.
Obama is not married to Ayers and Obama did not attent Weather Underground meetings in Elementary School in Hawaii...I don't think.
If John McCain had the same sort of association with the scum who were apart of the gang who blew up the Church in Birmingham in '63, do you honestly think he would be in the race still, particularly if the slime ball did not repent?????
I think seccesionist movements would be protected by the Constitution so as long they do not act upon their beliefs. I do have a problem with Palin's husband, but have a bigger problem with Ayers and Wright. Obama didn't leave that church until the primary season. Are you to tell me he didn't know what that church was about, Please. Ant politician who was a member of a church that spoke of Blacks negatively, their political careers would be finished.
Murdering people based on race and killing/attempting to kill government targets to stop a war the person considers immoral and also an act of violence/murder is a bit different.
I'm not defending the Weather Underground but the motivation is way different and even in court motivation for a crime does matter and is taken into account.
The Weather Underground believed 100% that the U.S. government was committing murder on Vietnamese people on a regular basis (and people in Laos as we bombed their often)...
If you have that belief that people are being murdered (maybe dozens a day) for years and you feel you are acting to bring home those who were sent to an immoral evil war and also protect natives of that country from being murdered and you target government locations in an attempt to strike against a government military arm, etc.
That is not even close to racist morons who hate fellow citizens so much just because of how they were born to blow up children in a House of God.
Believe it or not I have been to that church once (Oprah was also a member at one time) and many black politicians and notables on the SOuthside of Chicago are, I would say the church is mostly middle class blacks.
On the day I went we were basically visiting the church of my stepmother's cousins. At that time we lived in Waukegan, IL.
I don't recall exactly as it was about 20 years ago, but I don't remember anyone saying anything about white people at all...I think I remember him talking about how black people were turning on each other, selling out, and not carrying out the work of Jesus and trying to help their fellow brother and sister who was less fortunate.
I can't give you details though. I do remember the church was loud their was a lot of "testifying" and the band/chorus was huge and the building was the largest church I had ever been into. I was raised Catholic so I thought it was bizarre, including the Afrocentric dress of the minister.
On most occasions from what I know Wright does not talk about racism, American racism, white folks, etc. Like a lot of Afrocentric types or even traditionalist black preachers he spends a lot of time telling black folks why they will go to hell unless they don't get things together personally and also help their community.
I'm not saying he has not said controversial things, he has...but I'm wondering what percentage that is? 10% of, 20% of all his sermons?
As far as Obama...I don't care he was a member of that church. I doubt he went often.
That church was politically expedient to him. Just like a lot of wacko Republicans belong to churches that say 911 was the result of feminism and gay marriage and God is punishing America (more than one Religious Right person made statements like that after 911).
Obama knew to be someone in Chicago politics, as a black man with no roots he needed to make connections with the churches and that was one of the biggest and most popular (as he states in his book).
As far as Ayers...if you want to be a liberal politician in Chicago...you will have dealings with him sooner or later. Even when I was in junior high I had heard of Ayers, but I didn't know what he did in the past. He is known in Chicago politics, especially in Education. In Chicago he is fairly mainstream (what I mean is he is not seen as crazy or outside the norm as maybe Pat Buchanan...not in Chicago he isn't...)
Obama, is a politician. He made alliances, some lose, some not with people who could help him gain political power.
I do not for one minute believe that Obama thinks blowing people up over the Vietnam war was good. I also do not think Obama agrees with everything REv. Wright said, like "the U.s. Gov gave black people HIV".
I have no reason to believe that based on his writings and his speeches. In fact based on his books, I seriously doubt it. Obama has always talked liberal but acted quite pragmatic....this is not just true today but also when he was a teen and in college. I also do not think Obama hates America. I think he feels some segments of Americn society are in serious need of reform and are not good. That in no way means he hates it.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 22 Oct 2008 18:02 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
It is amazing to me that you can not admit that Palin's husband has at the least been involved in traitorous activity.
Obama did not blow up anything. Ayers tried and did not succeed when Obama was 8 years old. Ayers was also never convicted of any crimes in relation to terrorism, although it is obvious, by his own admission he advocated it.
Ayer's is everything you said, or was.
Obama is not married to Ayers and Obama did not attent Weather Underground meetings in Elementary School in Hawaii...I don't think.
If John McCain had the same sort of association with the scum who were apart of the gang who blew up the Church in Birmingham in '63, do you honestly think he would be in the race still, particularly if the slime ball did not repent?????
I think seccesionist movements would be protected by the Constitution so as long they do not act upon their beliefs. I do have a problem with Palin's husband, but have a bigger problem with Ayers and Wright. Obama didn't leave that church until the primary season. Are you to tell me he didn't know what that church was about, Please. Ant politician who was a member of a church that spoke of Blacks negatively, their political careers would be finished.
Also as far as McCain belonging to a church that speaks of blacsk negatively as compared to Obama and whites.
That is the difference between Seinfeld telling blacks jokes and Cris Rock making fun of white people.
Due to the historic power dynamic whites have the majority of the political and economic power, even exceeding their numbers.
Most whites blow off Cris Rock because they don't feel truly threatened.
Blacks can't afford to blow off jokes like this by whites...just like Jew who blew off Nazis were stupid. When you are a minority you can't take this type of stuff for granted as it could turn into a situation that will hurt you. This is true all over the world.
In most nations minority groups are sensitive but the majority is somewhat cavalier.
If blacks were the majority and had simliar power to whties now, I'm pretty sure whites would be seriously concerned about "black mood and tolerance" of them, and rightfully so.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Wed 22 Oct 2008 18:04 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Murdering people based on race and killing/attempting to kill government targets to stop a war the person considers immoral and also an act of violence/murder is a bit different.
OK, tell that to the people whose relatives were blown up in Weather Underground explosions.
One of Ayers' bombings was a home of a judge in New York. No one was killed, but the children were quite startled.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 22 Oct 2008 18:09 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Murdering people based on race and killing/attempting to kill government targets to stop a war the person considers immoral and also an act of violence/murder is a bit different.
OK, tell that to the people whose relatives were blown up in Weather Underground explosions.
One of Ayers' bombings was a home of a judge in New York. No one was killed, but the children were quite startled.
I didn't say it was not a crime or it was not immoral, I simply said the motivation is far different. I don't think most people would equate the two.
Also as far as Ayers and Wright.
Most white people don't care about Wright and from the polling I have seen most know about it.
Ayers, I'm sure most Americans are disturbed by it, but it is kind of obvious that most people don't seem to care much. More people are concerned with Obama's experience than with Ayers by a good margin.
Like I said, the average white American might be offended by Wright but he does not scare them. THey are white in America. NO reason to be scared of some crazy black guy from Chicago for most of them.
Ayers to most people is ancient history, Americans don't do so well with history and are forward looking people, I seriously doubt they are stuck on what some guy Obama knew did in the late 1960's that had nothign to do with Obama.
These things might be make or break for you, but I would say, based on the polling evidence you are not typical and the election won't be decided on these issues.
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Thu 23 Oct 2008 12:52 Post subject:
The so called neutral press, yeah right!
The Washington Post reports that news coverage of McCain is twice as much negative as that of Obama. According to the study, 57 percent of news stories showed an undeniably negative bias against McCain, while 29 percent were neutrality and only14 percent were positive.
The Washington Post reports that news coverage of McCain is twice as much negative as that of Obama. According to the study, 57 percent of news stories showed an undeniably negative bias against McCain, while 29 percent were neutrality and only14 percent were positive.
I've never heard anyone call the press "neutral." That's not a word much used for any entity except Switzerland or interior decorating. Mainstream media does have a bias towards reporting two sides of an issue, no matter the issue.
McCain's campaign and tactics could explain a lot of the negative coverage IMO. No matter where you sit on the spectrum, his management (or lack thereof) of his primary and presidential campaigns has been abysmal.
President Bush's coverage is overwhelmingly negative these days. I'd say it reflects public opinion and his performance, or perceptions thereof.
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Thu 23 Oct 2008 13:22 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
McCain's campaign and tactics could explain a lot of the negative coverage IMO. No matter where you sit on the spectrum, his management (or lack thereof) of his primary and presidential campaigns has been abysmal.
To be fair this reflects your opinion based on your point of view.
I think it goes without saying that a Democrat or liberal would disagree vehemently that the press has a liberal stance.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Thu 23 Oct 2008 13:29 Post subject:
chip wrote:
sagascend wrote:
McCain's campaign and tactics could explain a lot of the negative coverage IMO. No matter where you sit on the spectrum, his management (or lack thereof) of his primary and presidential campaigns has been abysmal.
To be fair this reflects your opinion based on your point of view.
I think it goes without saying that a Democrat or liberal would disagree vehemently that the press has a liberal stance.
This is absolutely the case. Generally because many "liberals" think that their point of view is the default, "mainstream" view point.
Last edited by DChapman on Thu 23 Oct 2008 13:48; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Thu 23 Oct 2008 13:37 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
chip wrote:
sagascend wrote:
McCain's campaign and tactics could explain a lot of the negative coverage IMO. No matter where you sit on the spectrum, his management (or lack thereof) of his primary and presidential campaigns has been abysmal.
To be fair this reflects your opinion based on your point of view.
I think it goes without saying that a Democrat or liberal would disagree vehemently that the press has a liberal stance.
This is absolutely the case.
Obama has had negative adds but the vast majority of them have to do with McCain's policies.
McCain found out he can not win on issues as the average voter favors Obama's stances, at least on the issues that are seen as most critical this election year.
So McCains attack adds are almost all personal, trying to demonize Obama as a person based on ideology (not specific issues) or past associations, etc.
This is why McCain (by almost every poll) is seen as running a negative campaign and the news media only reflects this.
The news is not all powerful. Most people don't read newspapers and not even half of Americans watch the nightly news on the average night. The average person might not be "bright" but they are not stupid either.
McCain's campaign and tactics could explain a lot of the negative coverage IMO. No matter where you sit on the spectrum, his management (or lack thereof) of his primary and presidential campaigns has been abysmal.
To be fair this reflects your opinion based on your point of view.
I think it goes without saying that a Democrat or liberal would disagree vehemently that the press has a liberal stance.
This is absolutely the case.
While, as I clearly stated, it is my opinion, it is one that is shared by fairminded people who base their assessment of efficacy on results rather than ideology. Either a campaign is run well or it isn't. The McCain campaign is a disaster based on what is happening right now. Bill Kristol even went there, pleading for McCain to clean house and get things on track. We all know how liberal he is.
And since Chip said and Dean agreed that bias is in the eye of the beholder, it is interesting that some of us are able to call a spade a spade regardless. It makes no sense to me to label an industry rife with all sorts of biases as having a liberal or conservative bias. But, then again, blaming "the media" when your candidate is on the ropes is a tactic that hasn't worked for many lately. Just ask Hillary Clinton about that.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 24 Oct 2008 16:47 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
And since Chip said and Dean agreed that bias is in the eye of the beholder, it is interesting that some of us are able to call a spade a spade regardless. It makes no sense to me to label an industry rife with all sorts of biases as having a liberal or conservative bias. But, then again, blaming "the media" when your candidate is on the ropes is a tactic that hasn't worked for many lately. Just ask Hillary Clinton about that.
I'm certainly not blaming the media that "my candidate is on the ropes". I don't care if "my candidate" was headed for a landslide victory, there will still be liberal media bias as I see it.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
