PDA

View Full Version : Philadelphia Debate


jettio
04-16-2008, 09:14 PM
I thought I was watching the most disgraceful debate moderating in the history of television.

I am surprised at how much the C-Span callers and the talking heads on the cable shows agree with me on that.

Charlie Gibson and the gay local guy from Manchester, NH, helped Hillary in New Hampshire. Now Charlie Gibson and Gorgeous George Stephanopolous try again but this time they way overstep.

Those white guys sure like arguing with and interrupting Obama as if he is some impudent white acting college boy instead of the next President of the United States and what the hell is this obliquely referring to "questionaires from 1996" and other unknown people and sources.

I'm for Obama, of course, but that was about the worst performance by the press since Rove and B*sh put a p*ssy on the MSM and used them to sell the Iraq War to an incurious public.

chiefforlife
04-16-2008, 09:31 PM
I thought it was pretty good. I want to see Obama get tested, he does well when pushed.
I thought his decision to not go into the Bosnia fairytale of Hillary's was perfect. His economic solutions weren't painless but made sense. He didn't put a 60 day withdrawl on Iraq like Hillary. That just isn't feasible.
Overall I think he stole the show.

ClevelandBronco
04-16-2008, 09:40 PM
I thought I was watching the most disgraceful debate moderating in the history of television.

I am surprised at how much the C-Span callers and the talking heads on the cable shows agree with me on that.

Charlie Gibson and the gay local guy from Manchester, NH, helped Hillary in New Hampshire. Now Charlie Gibson and Gorgeous George Stephanopolous try again but this time they way overstep.

Those white guys sure like arguing with and interrupting Obama as if he is some impudent white acting college boy instead of the next President of the United States and what the hell is this obliquely referring to "questionaires from 1996" and other unknown people and sources.

I'm for Obama, of course, but that was about the worst performance by the press since Rove and B*sh put a p*ssy on the MSM and used them to sell the Iraq War to an incurious public.

I'm not looking forward to the kind of government Sen. (and possible future Pres.) Obama would cobble together.

I say that knowing full well that he could still ask Dick Cheney to be his vice president. That would certainly change my mind.

HolmeZz
04-16-2008, 10:07 PM
That was an embarrassment of a debate and ABC shouldn't be allowed to hold another one in the near or distant future. The questions were awful and it was pathetically one-sided. Hillary was allowed to dance away from the Bosnia issue and they didn't even bother to bring up Mark Penn and the Colombian trade agreement. I couldn't believe when Stephanopaulos said "there have been rumors you told Bill Richardson that Obama couldn't win in the general election, but I'm not going to ask you about that...". WTF kind of bullshit was that?

Meanwhile Obama is getting follow-up after follow-up, having false information thrown at him, and having to deal with flat out retarded questions.

"Does Reverend Wright love America as much as you do?"

"WHY WONT YOU WEAR THE FLAG PIN, SENATOR OBAMA!?!? DO YOU NOT LOVE THIS COUNTRY?"

That debate resulted in everyone losing.

HolmeZz
04-16-2008, 10:59 PM
Apparently Ed Rendell didn't like what they were doing to Obama, even as a Hillary supporter.

Logical
04-16-2008, 11:30 PM
Everyone watching that debate lost IQ points if they watched all the way to the end. It was indeed one sided and truthfully Obama did not attack in the few cases he had the chance. It is good to take the high ground on some things but not when you are in a debate. His lack of attacks actually hurt him in my eyes. I now cannot wait for him to debate McCain, frankly he cannot be such a pussy when we get to that debate or the Republican machine will chew him a new asshole.

HolmeZz
04-16-2008, 11:39 PM
Everyone watching that debate lost IQ points if they watched all the way to the end. It was indeed one sided and truthfully Obama did not attack in the few cases he had the chance. It is good to take the high ground on some things but not when you are in a debate. His lack of attacks actually hurt him in my eyes. I now cannot wait for him to debate McCain, frankly he cannot be such a pussy when we get to that debate or the Republican machine will chew him a new asshole.

He's seen from Hillary that going negative really just drives up your own negatives. He did a good job making her look stupid about Bill having pardoned 2 members of Weatherunderground. He laid off the Bosnia stuff, probably so he wouldn't look petty.

I think any honest person watching the debate saw what was going on(hell, even Rendell did). Apparently Gibson and Stephanopoulos got booed by the crowd there.

Steph's line of questioning shouldn't have come as much of a suprise, being that he was an adviser to Bill.

ABC's going to get slammed big time for this debate, and that should be the headline from tonight.

Logical
04-16-2008, 11:45 PM
He's seen from Hillary that going negative really just drives up your own negatives. He did a good job making her look stupid about Bill having pardoned 2 members of Weatherunderground. He laid off the Bosnia stuff, probably so he wouldn't look petty.

I think any honest person watching the debate saw what was going on(hell, even Rendell did). Apparently Gibson and Stephanopoulos got booed by the crowd there.

Steph's line of questioning shouldn't have come as much of a suprise, being that he was an adviser to Bill.

ABC's going to get slammed big time for this debate, and that should be the headline from tonight.

I agree with most of this, I still feel he will have to go on the attack when he debates McCain.:shrug:

HolmeZz
04-16-2008, 11:51 PM
I think he'll debate him and attack aggressively when he actually gets to talk issues.

All he was doing tonight was having to defend himself because it was a lopsided debate. Once they started to talk issues, they were things Barack and Hillary agreed about.

ClevelandBronco
04-17-2008, 12:04 AM
I truly hope that he tries to attack Sen. McCain. IMO, he'll alienate some voters who'd like to think that he's the Healer Messiah.

jAZ
04-17-2008, 12:15 AM
Apparently Ed Rendell didn't like what they were doing to Obama, even as a Hillary supporter.

? I didn't see much. What's this reference to?

HolmeZz
04-17-2008, 12:19 AM
? I didn't see much. What's this reference to?

Apparently they talked to him afterwards and he wasn't very happy with the debate. I didn't get to see it but I've seen it get mentioned on different sites already.

Or were you talking about Gibson and Steph tag-teaming Barack?

jAZ
04-17-2008, 12:22 AM
Apparently they talked to him afterwards and he wasn't very happy with the debate. I didn't get to see it but I've seen it get mentioned on different sites already.

Or were you talking about Gibson and Steph tag-teaming Barack?

I was asking about the Rendell reference. Didn't see it show up in Google News, so I'm curious. He's definitely on the Clinton bandwagon.

HolmeZz
04-17-2008, 03:21 AM
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: "Senator Clinton, when Bill Richardson called you to say he was endorsing Barack Obama, you told him that Senator Obama can't win. I'm not going to ask you about that conversation. I know you don't want to talk about it."

Hopefully this gets picked up on because tonight was an embarrassment to the profession of broadcast journalism.

Saggysack
04-17-2008, 05:01 AM
Didn't watch. Already have made up my mind who I am voting for. Hillary isn't one of them.

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 05:29 AM
Um, I'm not sure, uh, who won but, uh, I think, uh, I know, um, who lost. I, uh, think that, um, if one of, uh, them has to, uh, think fast and, uh, go unscripted, it, uh, appears to be, uh, VERY difficult, for, uh, them to speak, um, without, uh, looking completely at, uh, loss about what, um, they are saying.

That, uh, leads me to believe, um, that they are, uh, not quite, um, who they have, uh, pretended to be. DUH.

HonestChieffan
04-17-2008, 06:15 AM
Bad Journalism is OK if the other persons Ox is being gored. Bad Journalism is bad when your guy is on the hot seat.

Thr content and the words from the debate are best buried under screams of anguish about the fairness of the debate.

Face it ObiWon Obama did not come out of this looking good and he lost ground again with the larger base of voters.

McCain won the debate.

Chief Henry
04-17-2008, 07:04 AM
Bad Journalism is OK if the other persons Ox is being gored. Bad Journalism is bad when your guy is on the hot seat.Thr content and the words from the debate are best buried under screams of anguish about the fairness of the debate.

Face it ObiWon Obama did not come out of this looking good and he lost ground again with the larger base of voters.

McCain won the debate.


I didn't watch the debate. But looking at the posts on this thread, ABC must have asked some pointed questions that our resident, self proclaimed experts didn't think were worthy of asking. My guess our self proclaimed political left wing nut - insult throwing experts didn't like seeing the difficult questions being asked to there Messiah.

jettio
04-17-2008, 07:24 AM
In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041700013.html?sid=ST2008041700060

By Tom Shales
Thursday, April 17, 2008; Page C01

When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.

The fact is, cable networks CNN and MSNBC both did better jobs with earlier candidate debates. Also, neither of those cable networks, if memory serves, rushed to a commercial break just five minutes into the proceedings, after giving each candidate a tiny, token moment to make an opening statement. Cable news is indeed taking over from network news, and merely by being competent.

Gibson sat there peering down at the candidates over glasses perched on the end of his nose, looking prosecutorial and at times portraying himself as a spokesman for the working class. Blunderingly he addressed an early question, about whether each would be willing to serve as the other's running mate, "to both of you," which is simple ineptitude or bad manners. It was his job to indicate which candidate should answer first. When, understandably, both waited politely for the other to talk, Gibson said snidely, "Don't all speak at once."

For that matter, the running-mate question that Gibson made such a big deal over was decidedly not a big deal -- especially since Wolf Blitzer asked it during a previous debate televised and produced by CNN.

The boyish Stephanopoulos, who has done wonders with the network's Sunday morning hour, "This Week" (as, indeed, has Gibson with the nightly "World News"), looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist. That was "40 years ago, when I was 8 years old," Obama said with exasperation.

Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.

No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. "Charlie, I've discussed this," he said, and indeed he has, ad infinitum. If he tried to avoid repeating himself when clarifying his position, the networks would accuse him of changing his story, or changing his tune, or some other baloney.

This is precisely what has happened with widely reported comments that Obama made about working-class people "clinging" to religion and guns during these times of cynicism about their federal government.

"It's not the first time I made a misstatement that was mangled up, and it won't be the last," said Obama, with refreshing candor. But candor is dangerous in a national campaign, what with network newsniks waiting for mistakes or foul-ups like dogs panting for treats after performing a trick. The networks' trick is covering an election with as little emphasis on issues as possible, then blaming everyone else for failing to focus on "the issues."

Some news may have come out of the debate (ABC News will pretend it did a great job on today's edition of its soppy, soap-operatic "Good Morning America"). Asked point-blank if she thought Obama could defeat presumptive Republican contender John McCain in the general election, Clinton said, "Yes, yes, yes," in apparent contrast to previous remarks in which she reportedly told other Democrats that Obama could never win. And in turn, Obama said that Clinton could "absolutely" win against McCain.

To this observer, ABC's coverage seemed slanted against Obama. The director cut several times to reaction shots of such Clinton supporters as her daughter, Chelsea, who sat in the audience at the Kimmel Theater in Philly's National Constitution Center. Obama supporters did not get equal screen time, giving the impression that there weren't any in the hall. The director also clumsily chose to pan the audience at the very start of the debate, when the candidates made their opening statements, so Obama and Clinton were barely seen before the first commercial break.

At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates -- or was he really patting himself on the back? -- for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He's entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.

HonestChieffan
04-17-2008, 07:28 AM
EEEEkkk....they asked about nutjob preacher!!! 2nd Amendment!! Values!!! Economy!!!

My God what is this campagn coming to? Leave the black guy alone!!!

jettio
04-17-2008, 07:33 AM
I didn't watch the debate. But looking at the posts on this thread, ABC must have asked some pointed questions that our resident, self proclaimed experts didn't think were worthy of asking. My guess our self proclaimed political left wing nut - insult throwing experts didn't like seeing the difficult questions being asked to there Messiah.

You did not watch the debate. Yet you venture an uninformed guess.

Your guess is wrong because any Obama supporter who has posted in this thread has acknowledged the possibility of bias.

It was clearly a disgraceful and ill-mannered performance for the moderators.

Asking stupid questions, interrupting the young black fella's answers and arguing with the young black fella in the middle of his answers.

There was not much chance that an elderly white guy like McCain would be interrupted and argued with by a moderator at a debate, but after the fallout from this debate you can bet that you won't see as disgraceful a moderator performance again.

NewChief
04-17-2008, 07:36 AM
Seriously boring debate. I'm glad to see that the anti-Obama slant was picked up by other people. My wife and I both felt it was there, but we're both Obama supporters. What I couldn't get over were the constant interuptions from the moderators when Obama was trying to answer questions. They were constantly breaking in. I believe in court they would call it badgering the witness.

patteeu
04-17-2008, 07:46 AM
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: "Senator Clinton, when Bill Richardson called you to say he was endorsing Barack Obama, you told him that Senator Obama can't win. I'm not going to ask you about that conversation. I know you don't want to talk about it."

Hopefully this gets picked up on because tonight was an embarrassment to the profession of broadcast journalism.

Hopefully what gets picked up on?

Chief Henry
04-17-2008, 07:53 AM
You did not watch the debate. Yet you venture an uninformed guess.

Your guess is wrong because any Obama supporter who has posted in this thread has acknowledged the possibility of bias.

It was clearly a disgraceful and ill-mannered performance for the moderators.

Asking stupid questions, interrupting the young black fella's answers and arguing with the young black fella in the middle of his answers.

There was not much chance that an elderly white guy like McCain would be interrupted and argued with by a moderator at a debate, but after the fallout from this debate you can bet that you won't see as disgraceful a moderator performance again.

I don't have to watch it. Its easy to read what happened by reading the
sky is falling Barry lovers on this thread. To think, a moderator
might interupt a candidate. That happens ALL THE TIME. This time it happened to your guy and you think it sux. GET OVER IT.

chiefforlife
04-17-2008, 08:17 AM
I only caught the last 45 minutes of it and my take was way off. So, yeah, you should have watched it to get an accurate read on it.

jettio
04-17-2008, 08:22 AM
I don't have to watch it. Its easy to read what happened by reading the
sky is falling Barry lovers on this thread. To think, a moderator
might interupt a candidate. That happens ALL THE TIME. This time it happened to your guy and you think it sux. GET OVER IT.


The sky is not falling. Obama has always been doubtful to win the primary in Pennsylvania, but now he just might. Even if he does not, He will get the nomnation and he will beat McCain real easy.

I took the time to watch the debate, and have watched most of them since the actual primaries started. The moderators were clearly out of line.

You can keep arguing otherwise even though you did not watch. You go ahead and embrace your ignorance of this topic just like you embrace your ignorance about everything related to politics. the folks that think like you got their way in 2004 and got an assist from the Supreme Court in 2000.

In 2008, the folks that think like you get to finish second and our country's fortunes in the future will be a lot better off.

patteeu
04-17-2008, 08:46 AM
I don't have to watch it. Its easy to read what happened by reading the
sky is falling Barry lovers on this thread. To think, a moderator
might interupt a candidate. That happens ALL THE TIME. This time it happened to your guy and you think it sux. GET OVER IT.

You'll have to excuse them. The Obama folks aren't as used to debate moderators asking gotcha questions of their candidate as the rest of us are.

chiefforlife
04-17-2008, 08:59 AM
If you are going to ask the question, let the man answer.

Could I get an example of a "gotcha question" that was asked? I must have missed those.

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 09:06 AM
So asking tough, if irrelevent, questions=anti-Obama slant? ROFL

Give me a break. The moderators sucked because they asked questions that were bad. It was not their fault that Obama proceeded to wade knee deep into the shit. He could have easily turned their bad questions into a positive vs. looking like the awkward, unsettled, irritated shrinking violet that he became.

Sheesh, some here act like it's the moderators fault that they didn't think to try to rescue Obama from HIMSELF.

Logical
04-17-2008, 09:06 AM
I don't have to watch it. Its easy to read what happened by reading the
sky is falling Barry lovers on this thread. To think, a moderator
might interupt a candidate. That happens ALL THE TIME. This time it happened to your guy and you think it sux. GET OVER IT.

First of all had you really read the thread you would see that most Obama supporters acknowledge it did not go well for him but felt he did the best possible under the circumstances. Frankly many of the questions asked of Clinton were impertinet as well but she was not interrupted when answering.

The debate was not even a clear winner for McCain because it became very clear to both candidates supporters that the other was going to support the ticket when the race was over. This will likely get the waverers back in line behind the Democratic ticket. If you have been paying attention at all you would know the Dems have far more supporters this year than the Republicans.

This is going to be a hard fought battle to the end and McCain is not going to walk away an easy winner.

NewChief
04-17-2008, 09:08 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/the-debate-a-shameful-nig_b_97122.html
In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin -- while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.

Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former '60s radical -- a question that came out of rightwing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopoulos. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on. The travesty continued.

More time was spent on all of this than segments on getting out of Iraq and keeping people from losing their homes and -- you name it. Gibson only got excited complaining that someone might raise his capital gains tax. Yet neither candidate had the courage to ask the moderators to turn to those far more important issues. Talking heads on other networks followed up by not pressing that point either. The crowd booed Gibson near the end. Why didn't every other responsible journalist on TV?

To top it off, here is David Brooks' review at The New York Times: "I thought the questions were excellent." He gives ABC an "A." Of course, "A" can stand for many things.

NewChief
04-17-2008, 09:08 AM
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/An_open_letter_to_Charlie_Gibson_and_George_Stephanapoulos.html
An open letter to Charlie Gibson and George Stephanapoulos
Dear Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos,

It's hard to know where to begin with this, less than an hour after you signed off from your Democratic presidential debate here in my hometown of Philadelphia, a televised train wreck that my friend and colleague Greg Mitchell has already called, quite accurately, "a shameful night for the U.S. media." It's hard because -- like many other Americans -- I am still angry at what I just witnesses, so angry that it's hard to even type accurately because my hands are shaking. Look, I know that "media criticism" -- especially when it's one journalist speaking to another -- tends to be a genteel, colleagial thing, but there's no genteel way to say this.

With your performance tonight -- your focus on issues that were at best trivial wastes of valuable airtime and at worst restatements of right-wing falsehoods, punctuated by inane "issue" questions that in no way resembled the real world concerns of American voters -- you disgraced my profession of journalism, and, by association, me and a lot of hard-working colleagues who do still try to ferret out the truth, rather than worry about who can give us the best deal on our capital gains taxes. But it's even worse than that. By so badly botching arguably the most critical debate of such an important election, in a time of both war and economic misery, you disgraced the American voters, and in fact even disgraced democracy itself. Indeed, if I were a citizen of one of those nations where America is seeking to "export democracy," and I had watched the debate, I probably would have said, "no thank you." Because that was no way to promote democracy.

You implied throughout the broadcast that you wanted to reflect the concerns of voters in Pennsylvania. Well, I'm a Pennsylvanian voter, and so are my neighbors and most of my friends and co-workers. You asked virtually nothing that reflected our everyday issues -- trying to fill our gas tanks and save for college at the same time, our crumbling bridges and inadequate mass transit, or the root causes of crime here in Philadelphia. In fact, there almost isn't enough space -- and this is cyberspace, where room is unlimited -- to list all the things you could have asked about but did not, from health care to climate change to alternative energy to our policy toward China to the deterioration of Afghanistan to veterans' benefits to improving education. You ignored virtually everything that just happened in what most historians agree is one of the worst presidencies in American history, including the condoning of torture and the trashing of the Constitution, although to be fair you also ignored the policy concerns of people on the right, like immigration issues.

You asked about gun control -- phrased to try for a "gotcha" in a state where that's such a divisive issue -- but not about what we really care about, which is how to reduce crime. You pressed and pressed on those capital gains taxes, but Senators Clinton and Obama were forced to bring up the housing crisis on their own initiative.

Instead, you wasted more than half of the debate -- a full hour -- on tabloid trivia that for the most part wasn't even that interesting, because most of it was infertile ground that has already been covered again and again and again. I'm not saying that Rev. Wright and Bosnia sniper fire and "bitter" were never newsworthy -- I myself wrote about all of these for the Philadelphia Daily News or my Attytood blog, back when they were more relevant -- but the questions were stale yet clearly intended to gin up controversy (they didn't, by the way, other than the controversy over you.) The final questions of that section, asking Obama whether he thought Rev. Wright "loved America" and then suggesting that Obama himself is somehow a hater of the American flag, or worse, were flat-out repulsive.

Are you even thinking when simply echo some of the vilest talking points from far-right talk radio? What are actually getting at -- do you honestly believe that someone with a solid track record as a lawmaker in a Heartland state which elected him to the U.S. Senate, who is now seeking to make some positive American history as our first black president, is somehow un-American, or unpatriotic? Does that even make any sense? Question his policies, or question his leadership. because that is your job as a journalist. But don't insult our intelligence by questioning his patriotism.

Here's a question for you, George. Is it true that yesterday you appeared on the radio with conservative talk radio host Sean Hannity, and that you said you were "taking notes" when he urged you to ask a question about Obama's supposed ties to a former member of the Weather Underground -- which in fact you did. With all the fabulous resources of ABC News at your disposal, is that an appropriate way for a supposed journalist to come up with debate questions, by pandering to divisive radio shows?

And Charlie...could you be any more out of touch with your viewers? Most people aren't millionaires like you, and if Pennsylvanians are losing sleep over economic matters, it is not over whether the capital gains tax will go back up again. I was a little shocked when you pressed and pressed on that back-burner issue and left almost no time for high gas prices, but then I learned tonight that you did the same thing in the last debate, that you fretted over that middle-class family that made $200,000 a year. Charlie, the nicest way that I can put this is that you need to get out more.

But I'm not ready to make nice. What I just watched was an outrage. As a journalist, you appeared to confirm all of the worst qualities that cause people to hold our profession in such low esteem, especially your obsession with cornering the candidates with lame "trick" questions and your complete lack of interest or concern about substance -- or about the American people, or the state of our nation. You embarassed some good people who work at ABC News -- for example, the journalists who worked hard to break this story just last week -- and you embarassed yourselves. The millions of people who watched the debate were embarassed, too -- at the state of our political discourse, and what it has finally become, at long last.

Quickly, a word to any and all of my fellow journalists who happen to read this open letter. This. Must . Stop. Tonight, if possible. I thought that we had hit rock bottom in March 2003, when we failed to ask the tough questions in the run-up to the Iraq war. But this feels even lower. We need to pick ourselves up, right now, and start doing our job -- to take a deep breath and remind ourselves of what voters really need to know, and how we get there, that's it's not all horserace and "gotcha." Although, to be blunt, I would also urge the major candidates in 2012 to agree only to debates that are organized by the League of Women Voters, with citizen moderators and questioners. Because we have proven without a doubt in 2008 that working journalists don't deserve to be the debate "deciders."

Charlie, I'm going to sign off this letter the way that you always sign off the news, that "I hope you had a great day."

Because America just had a horrible night.

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 09:08 AM
I watched most of the debate IMO some of the questions were fair some were not. I thought the bitter questions and the Wright questions were fair. I think the Bill Ayers and patriotism questions were out of line. They should have asked Hillary about her top aide dealing with the Columbia trade issue when she is against it and why she didn't fire him. They pretty much gave her a free pass as well on the Bosnia issue especially in light of video surfacing in the last few days of her saying the same thing back in Iowa and NH.

NewChief
04-17-2008, 09:09 AM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/niall_stanage/2008/04/the_dumbest_debate_in_america.html
The dumbest debate in America?
Niall Stanage
April 17, 2008 11:00 AM

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/niall_stanage/2008/04/the_dumbest_debate_in_america.html

What is it about Philadelphia? The city last month hosted one of the most impressive moments of the presidential campaign to date: Barack Obama's forthright speech on race. But last night, the very same venue - the National Constitution Centre - witnessed one of the worst events: the dismal ABC News debate between the Democratic candidates.

The contrast could hardly have been starker. Obama's March 18 speech was sophisticated, honest and, above all, respectful of the intelligence of his audience. Last night's debate - or, more specifically, the performance of its moderators, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos - was by turns superficial and disingenuous.

The trouble started early. Gibson began with an utterly fatuous inquiry about whether each candidate would pledge to ask the other to be their vice-presidential nominee if they won, and agree to accept the veep slot if they lost. Tired questions about the Jeremiah Wright affair and Obama's remarks regarding voters in Midwestern states who "cling" to religion and social issues followed.

About half the time set aside for the debate had elapsed - and seven flimsy or already-exhausted issues had been raised - before the first serious question of the night, about troop withdrawals from Iraq, was asked.

The relentless triviality was only one problem, however. The more serious failing was the willingness of Gibson and Stephanopoulos to volunteer as water-carriers for a conservative attack machine that, fearful of Obama's crossover appeal, is already working overtime to tarnish his reputation.

Gibson placed ABC's imprimatur on one of the more obviously silly stories - the suggestion that Obama's disinclination to wear a stars and stripes flag pin could render him unelectable.

"As you may know, it is all over the internet," Gibson intoned earnestly, as if hoping this might absolve him from any responsibility for raising such a gaseous point during a critical prime-time debate.

"I have never said that I don't wear flag pins or refuse to wear flag pins," Obama - who had, in fact, donned such a pin when it was given to him by a veteran on Tuesday - said in response.

"This is the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with and, once again, distracts us from what should be my job when I'm commander in chief, which is going to be figuring out how we get our troops out of Iraq and how we actually make our economy better for the American people."

That response provoked the audience to break the night's ground rules by bursting into applause. But Stephanopoulos, undaunted, immediately took up the baton to investigate what he absurdly categorised as "the general theme of patriotism" - or supposed lack thereof - in Obama's personal life.

One would have thought Stephanopoulos might have acquired some perceptiveness about the methods of rightwing smear merchants in his previous job as a senior advisor in Bill Clinton's White House. Apparently not.

Having already asked Obama a risible question about his former pastor ("Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?"), Stephanopoulos now pressed him on his "relationship" with Bill Ayers.

Ayers is a professor at the University of Illinois and a fixture on the liberal edges of Chicago's political scene. As such, it is hardly surprising that one local meet'n'greet, when Obama was beginning his run for the Illinois state senate took place at Ayers' house. The two men also served together on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago for a time. Ayers, however, is also a former member of the Weather Underground, and remains unapologetic about that organisation's crimes.

When his name surfaced in February, Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod was asked about the two men's relationship.

"Bill Ayers lives in his neighbourhood," Axelrod told Politico.com's Ben Smith. "Their kids attend the same school. They're certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together [would]."

In fact, Axelrod had his facts slightly askew. Though Ayers' children had once attended the same school as Obama's daughters, they had left before the much younger Obama girls began.

The quote was nevertheless fairly innocuous in context. But it has been pared down in the more Obamaphobic parts of the blogosphere to one word: friendly. From that, all manner of bizarre theories about Obama's alleged sympathies for Ayers have been extrapolated.

The febrile hypothesising had been confined to the farthest fringes of the national conversation until Fox News' Sean Hannity lent his weight to the cause. Hannity has done his best to amplify the issue on radio and TV.

There is, of course, no evidence whatsoever that Obama harbours even a smidgen of sympathy for Ayers' radicalism or the Weather Underground's worldview. And, more generally, if the views of every person with whom a presidential candidate has ever interacted are to be judged as possible disqualifiers from office, America's political future would look very impoverished indeed.

Obama struggled to restrain his frustration when Stephanopoulos injected the phoney issue into the debate.

"The notion that ... me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George," the Illinois senator noted dryly.

When a presidential debate in a nation roiled by two wars, an economic crisis and a seven-year onslaught on civil liberties revolves around questions about flag pins and casual friends, it would be easy to despair.

But there are reasons to believe that Obama's claim last night - "the American people are smarter than that" - may be proven true this year.

His thoughtful response to the Wright controversy last month stopped his poll decline dead in its tracks and restored his dominant position over Clinton. Despite the media hubbub over his "cling" remarks, the most recent polls suggest the furor has had virtually no effect.

And, most encouragingly of all, the public response to last night's awful performance by the debate moderators was immediate and vociferous. As heckling erupted at the debate's end, Gibson smiled wanly and said, "The crowd is turning on me." Within three hours of the debate's end, the ABC News website had received over 7,600 comments about the evening's events. The overwhelming majority were negative.

Stephanopoulos and Gibson deserve every bit of opprobrium being thrown their way. They delivered a noxious blend of smear, innuendo and diversion.

But it looks like the same old political junk food no longer satisfies an electorate hungry for real change.

NewChief
04-17-2008, 09:10 AM
Or go here and read all the comments from viewers:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/comments?type=story&id=4666956

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 09:11 AM
So asking tough, if irrelevent, questions=anti-Obama slant? ROFL

Give me a break. The moderators sucked because they asked questions that were bad. It was not their fault that Obama proceeded to wade knee deep into the shit. He could have easily turned their bad questions into a positive vs. looking like the awkward, unsettled, irritated shrinking violet that he became.

Sheesh, some here act like it's the moderators fault that they didn't think to try to rescue Obama from HIMSELF.

I don't have a problem with anyone asking tough questions but the first half of the debate were about shit that really doesn't matter. They need to ask tough questions on their economic, health care, Iraq policies, and what they are going to do about SS.

patteeu
04-17-2008, 09:14 AM
If you are going to ask the question, let the man answer.

Could I get an example of a "gotcha question" that was asked? I must have missed those.

The whole business of bringing up these embarrassing controversies is what I'm talking about.

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 09:17 AM
I don't have a problem with anyone asking tough questions but the first half of the debate were about shit that really doesn't matter. They need to ask tough questions on their economic, health care, Iraq policies, and what they are going to do about SS.

I think it does matter because Obama is an unknown. It's situations like these that people will formulate judgments about him. It is an unfortunate fact, and unknown to most people, that debates are NOT Obama's forte and he has, in fact, struggled in most of them up until the most recent debates. Remove that teleprompter and the script and Obama is an average and adequate speaker at BEST.

Because Obama is saying he carries less baggage, can survive a vetting, and is a different than other politicians with all of their sleazy associates, Obama HAS to answer these questions. Where the moderators went wrong is allowing him to hang himself because it looked like they were picking on him. They should have spread out the questioning so he didn't look like the punching bag he appeared to be.

And they should have made the correlation between HIS own professions of being different, having integrity, and being above partisan politics and why those questions are relevant for Obama to answer.

And if Obama can't stand the sort of heat that he felt last night he has NO PLACE IN THE KITCHEN.

Chief Henry
04-17-2008, 09:22 AM
The sky is not falling. Obama has always been doubtful to win the primary in Pennsylvania, but now he just might. Even if he does not, He will get the nomnation and he will beat McCain real easy.

I took the time to watch the debate, and have watched most of them since the actual primaries started. The moderators were clearly out of line.

You can keep arguing otherwise even though you did not watch. You go ahead and embrace your ignorance of this topic just like you embrace your ignorance about everything related to politics. the folks that think like you got their way in 2004 and got an assist from the Supreme Court in 2000.

In 2008, the folks that think like you get to finish second and our country's fortunes in the future will be a lot better off.


thats your opinion ~ nothing more~nothing less

Your boy is not the messiah.

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 09:25 AM
The whole business of bringing up these embarrassing controversies is what I'm talking about.

Do you think it is a fair question to ask someone in a presidential debate if they are patriotic? The Bill Ayers question was stupid as well because just because he knows the guy and served on a board with doesn't mean he hangs out with and goes on bombing runs.

If they are going to ask about Bill Ayers they need to ask Hillary what was she doing in the WH while Bill was ****ing Monica

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 09:27 AM
I think it does matter because Obama is an unknown. It's situations like these that people will formulate judgments about him. It is an unfortunate fact, and unknown to most people, that debates are NOT Obama's forte and he has, in fact, struggled in most of them up until the most recent debates. Remove that teleprompter and the script and Obama is an average and adequate speaker at BEST.

Because Obama is saying he carries less baggage, can survive a vetting, and is a different than other politicians with all of their sleazy associates, Obama HAS to answer these questions. Where the moderators went wrong is allowing him to hang himself because it looked like they were picking on him. They should have spread out the questioning so he didn't look like the punching bag he appeared to be.

And they should have made the correlation between HIS own professions of being different, having integrity, and being above partisan politics and why those questions are relevant for Obama to answer.

And if Obama can't stand the sort of heat that he felt last night he has NO PLACE IN THE KITCHEN.

I don't have a problem with that especially with the Wright and bitter stuff but the patriotic and Ayers questions were totally out of line IMHO.

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 09:31 AM
Do you think it is a fair question to ask someone in a presidential debate if they are patriotic? The Bill Ayers question was stupid as well because just because he knows the guy and served on a board with doesn't mean he hangs out with and goes on bombing runs.

If they are going to ask about Bill Ayers they need to ask Hillary what was she doing in the WH while Bill was ****ing Monica

Look, Obama has a list of characters in his midst that most Obama supporters know full well are not the type that the American people look kindly on. Now, these could be individual misjudgments or they can indicate a pattern. Right now while people are getting to know HIM then these questions are fair and relevant.

And trust me, as much as it hurts NOW, you want these issues to be hashed out as much as possible now so that it will take the sting out of what is to come later. Can you imagine if Obama had given that performance in a general election debate when asked those questions?

It's just going to get more intense and more invasive and he has to be able to withstand this or he's in the wrong business. Because HE and HIS SUPPORTERS have decided they want new rules or a new game doesn't mean that the rest of the political spectrum has agreed to go along...

your guy hasn't convinced everyone. That means he plays his game AND their game or he's toast.

NewChief
04-17-2008, 09:31 AM
Do you think it is a fair question to ask someone in a presidential debate if they are patriotic? The Bill Ayers question was stupid as well because just because he knows the guy and served on a board with doesn't mean he hangs out with and goes on bombing runs.

If they are going to ask about Bill Ayers they need to ask Hillary what was she doing in the WH while Bill was ****ing Monica


It's not even about fairness. They're stupid questions based on internet rumors that most people know to be idiotic rumors. It would be like asking Hillary something along the lines of, "A lot of people say you killed Vince Foster. How do you respond?"
I realize accusing someone of not wearing a flag pin and accusing someone of murder are different in degree, but they both stem from the same source: baseless hearsay and rumor.

mlyonsd
04-17-2008, 09:32 AM
And if Obama can't stand the sort of heat that he felt last night he has NO PLACE IN THE KITCHEN.

I wish Obama would go on Fox News Sunday. At least Hillary has the gnads to stand up to Chris Wallace.

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 09:34 AM
I don't have a problem with that especially with the Wright and bitter stuff but the patriotic and Ayers questions were totally out of line IMHO.

You are delusional. He will be running against a POW war hero. The RWNJs made Gore AND Kerry, both VETERANS, look like traitorous wimps. And you think Obama's patriotism is an out of line question? Or the fact that he has acquaintances (plural) that are known terrorists or steeped in anti-American beliefs are out of line????

I think some Obama fans have bought into their man's rhetoric so much that they've forgotten that the rules will apply to HIM as well.

chiefforlife
04-17-2008, 09:36 AM
The whole business of bringing up these embarrassing controversies is what I'm talking about.

I'll have to ask again what questions? The controversies? Wright, asked and answered. Bitter? Asked and answered. Even the people of Pennsylvania didnt think this was a big deal? Ayers, thats just ridiculous.

I'm not seeing any "gotcha questions", I didnt see the whole debate but it doesnt sound like there were very many real questions, much less these "gotcha questions".
I wish there were.

NewChief
04-17-2008, 09:38 AM
I'll have to ask again what questions? The controversies? Wright, asked and answered. Bitter? Asked and answered. Even the people of Pennsylvania didnt think this was a big deal? Ayers, thats just ridiculous.

I'm not seeing any "gotcha questions", I didnt see the whole debate but it doesnt sound like there were very many real questions, much less these "gotcha questions".
I wish there were.

I think he's referring to "gotcha" questions as questions where the asker feels a sense of "gotcha" as they ask the question. Like they're springing some surprise on the interview subject. It doesn't mean that the person being questioned was actually "got." The best example would be the Ayers question, because it hadn't been asked or addressed in a public forum as of yet. Step felt like he was really blindsiding Obama in asking it. BTW, evidently Step got that question from Hannity the day before when he hung with Sean and basically asked him what were good questions to spring on Obama.

chiefforlife
04-17-2008, 09:44 AM
I think he's referring to "gotcha" questions as questions where the asker feels a sense of "gotcha" as they ask the question. Like they're springing some surprise on the interview subject. It doesn't mean that the person being questioned was actually "got." The best example would be the Ayers question, because it hadn't been asked or addressed in a public forum as of yet. Step felt like he was really blindsiding Obama in asking it. BTW, evidently Step got that question from Hannity the day before when he hung with Sean and basically asked him what were good questions to spring on Obama.

Oh, I see.
Something like...nanny, nanny, nanny.

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 09:47 AM
It's not even about fairness. They're stupid questions based on internet rumors that most people know to be idiotic rumors. It would be like asking Hillary something along the lines of, "A lot of people say you killed Vince Foster. How do you respond?"
I realize accusing someone of not wearing a flag pin and accusing someone of murder are different in degree, but they both stem from the same source: baseless hearsay and rumor.

NewPhin said it best in that it would be like them asking Hillary about Vince Foster or how about asking Hillary about the lesbian rumor. It is rumors and innuendo that is all and IMO that is not we need to be asking in a presidential debate.

You are delusional. He will be running against a POW war hero. The RWNJs made Gore AND Kerry, both VETERANS, look like traitorous wimps. And you think Obama's patriotism is an out of line question? Or the fact that he has acquaintances (plural) that are known terrorists or steeped in anti-American beliefs are out of line????

I think some Obama fans have bought into their man's rhetoric so much that they've forgotten that the rules will apply to HIM as well.

Sure the Republicans will try to bring this stuff up but what I am talking about is asking those type of questions in a presidential debate. There is a huge difference IMHO.

patteeu
04-17-2008, 09:48 AM
Do you think it is a fair question to ask someone in a presidential debate if they are patriotic? The Bill Ayers question was stupid as well because just because he knows the guy and served on a board with doesn't mean he hangs out with and goes on bombing runs.

If they are going to ask about Bill Ayers they need to ask Hillary what was she doing in the WH while Bill was ****ing Monica

Of course it's a fair question. It's a shame those questions have to be asked, but Obama puts himself in that position. He's the one who sought support from a known and unrepentant terrorist. He's the one who famously refused to wear an American flag lapel pin out of some principle (which he's now abandoned btw).

I don't see the comparative relevance between the Monica question and the Ayers question, but whatever. I don't care if they ask Hillary a tasteful question about how she dealt with being so publicly cheated on.

patteeu
04-17-2008, 09:53 AM
It's not even about fairness. They're stupid questions based on internet rumors that most people know to be idiotic rumors. It would be like asking Hillary something along the lines of, "A lot of people say you killed Vince Foster. How do you respond?"
I realize accusing someone of not wearing a flag pin and accusing someone of murder are different in degree, but they both stem from the same source: baseless hearsay and rumor.

Come on. You Obama guys are really thin skinned. There is no substantiation for the rumor that Hillary killed Vince Foster, but it's an uncontroverted fact that Obama has a relationship with Bill Ayers (including an audience when Obama was just getting his political career started) and it's similarly undisputed that Obama, until recently, refused to wear American flag lapel pins.

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 09:53 AM
Of course it's a fair question. It's a shame those questions have to be asked, but Obama puts himself in that position. He's the one who sought support from a known and unrepentant terrorist. He's the one who famously refused to wear an American flag lapel pin out of some principle (which he's now abandoned btw).

I don't see the comparative relevance between the Monica question and the Ayers question, but whatever. I don't care if they ask Hillary a tasteful question about how she dealt with being so publicly cheated on.

Ayers is just acquaintance and someone who he served on a board with and they live in the same neighborhood. Big deal.

Also he has not abandoned wearing the flag lapel he just put it on the other day because a Iraq veteran gave it to him. He didn't have one on last night . DUH.

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 09:54 AM
NewPhin said it best in that it would be like them asking Hillary about Vince Foster or how about asking Hillary about the lesbian rumor. It is rumors and innuendo that is all and IMO that is not we need to be asking in a presidential debate.



Sure the Republicans will try to bring this stuff up but what I am talking about is asking those type of questions in a presidential debate. There is a huge difference IMHO.

The difference between the Foster and lesbian rumors and the flag and Ayers stories is that the latter were mainstream media stories. Thus, it's not simple internet rumors or bloggers runamok. They are things that have been discussed or at least mentioned in stories in the MSM.

Perhaps the mods should just leave Barry alone.


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LvUNFmB7Jl8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LvUNFmB7Jl8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

HonestChieffan
04-17-2008, 10:05 AM
The king has no underwear....thats what is driving Obama supporters nuts at this point. He looked bad...simple fact is he loooked bad and Hillary didnt come across as bad as the Obabamaniacs hoped...in addition his weekly or semi weekly screw ups have begun to gnaw on people who may have been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. The hard core Hillary voter now has even more reason to go to McCain...like it or not thats the dems biggest problem. Obama will end up with a core voter group who isnt big enough to get him elected in November...the superdelegates have to wrestle with that. In all honesty, they should nominate Hillary because she can win and Obama cant submarine her or he has no future. Hillary can submarine Obama and she just may.

The bloom is off the rose, the shine is gone from the obama rocket.

Donger
04-17-2008, 10:05 AM
The arrogance of the Barack Hussein camp is delicious.

patteeu
04-17-2008, 10:12 AM
Ayers is just acquaintance and someone who he served on a board with and they live in the same neighborhood. Big deal.

Also he has not abandoned wearing the flag lapel he just put it on the other day because a Iraq veteran gave it to him. He didn't have one on last night . DUH.

Ayers is also someone who contributed to Obama's campaign and who hosted a political get together when Obama ran for state senate. Normally, you wouldn't hold a candidate responsible for the sins of his supporters, but in this case, you have to believe that Obama was fully aware of who Bill Ayers was when the political interactions took place because Ayers makes no apologies and doesn't try to hide from his past. Even so, that's not to say that Obama is guilty of all of Ayers radical opinions, but it is a part of a constellation of troubling associations that Obama seems to have. One alone might not be cause for alarm, but many such associations would tell us something about the candidate.

Wrt the pin, the reason it made news the other day when he put the pin that a mysterious Iraq veteran gave him on is because he had so famously chose not to wear them in the past. Asking him about this subject just days after his flip flop is perfectly natural. Finally, after all this time, Obama is having to deal with the same kinds of annoying questions that every other candidate has had to deal with.

vailpass
04-17-2008, 10:22 AM
Those white guys sure like arguing with and interrupting Obama as if he is some impudent white acting college boy instead of the next President of the United States and what the hell is this obliquely referring to "questionaires from 1996" and other unknown people and sources.

I'm for Obama, of course, but that was about the worst performance by the press since Rove and B*sh put a p*ssy on the MSM and used them to sell the Iraq War to an incurious public.

Why do you mention skin color in this context?

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 10:26 AM
Ayers is also someone who contributed to Obama's campaign and who hosted a political get together when Obama ran for state senate. Normally, you wouldn't hold a candidate responsible for the sins of his supporters, but in this case, you have to believe that Obama was fully aware of who Bill Ayers was when the political interactions took place because Ayers makes no apologies and doesn't try to hide from his past. Even so, that's not to say that Obama is guilty of all of Ayers radical opinions, but it is a part of a constellation of troubling associations that Obama seems to have. One alone might not be cause for alarm, but many such associations would tell us something about the candidate.

Wrt the pin, the reason it made news the other day when he put the pin that a mysterious Iraq veteran gave him on is because he had so famously chose not to wear them in the past. Asking him about this subject just days after his flip flop is perfectly natural. Finally, after all this time, Obama is having to deal with the same kinds of annoying questions that every other candidate has had to deal with.

From the Politico story Alice Palmer took him to Ayers house to meet with people and to let them know he was replacing her. He donated a whopping $200 to his senate campaign. But now himself and many of those supporters think Obama is to conservative.

In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the districtís influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

ďI can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayersí house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,Ē said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. ď[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.Ē

They described the gathering as a matter of ďdue diligenceĒ for Palmer to introduce her chosen successor to constituents. ďMany of us knew him already,Ē he said.

They, like others in his old Chicago world, now consider him a bit too ďconservativeĒ for their liking, as Warren wrote recently.

Also from Politico on the flag pin

As a reader noticed, Obama was sporting the much-debated (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3690000) flag pin for his speech to veterans today.
UPDATE: The pin was given to Obama by a disabled vet at the event

patteeu
04-17-2008, 10:40 AM
From the Politico story Alice Palmer took him to Ayers house to meet with people and to let them know he was replacing her. He donated a whopping $200 to his senate campaign. But now himself and many of those supporters think Obama is to conservative.



Also from Politico on the flag pin

OK, so what? Both of those things are consistent with what I said. He was courting Ayers even though it's highly probable that he knew of Ayers background and he was against wearing a flag pin on his lapel on principle until recently when he flip flopped on the issue.

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 10:55 AM
OK, so what? Both of those things are consistent with what I said. He was courting Ayers even though it's highly probable that he knew of Ayers background and he was against wearing a flag pin on his lapel on principle until recently when he flip flopped on the issue.

LMAO That is nothing like what you said. It was an introductory meeting and he was tagging along nothing more nothing less.

He didn't flip on the flag pin either an Iraqi vet gave him one to wear and he was doing it to honor the guy during the speech he gave where that vet attended. He hasn't worn once since.

I think you're butt hurt because your bitch Romney was a constant flip flopper and now you want to pin that label on someone else

patteeu
04-17-2008, 11:00 AM
LMAO That is nothing like what you said. It was an introductory meeting and he was tagging along nothing more nothing less.

He didn't flip on the flag pin either an Iraqi vet gave him one to wear and he was doing it to honor the guy during the speech he gave where that vet attended. He hasn't worn once since.

I think you're butt hurt because your bitch Romney was a constant flip flopper and now you want to pin that label on someone else

There's definitely someone who's butt hurt here. I think it's obvious who it is.

Obama definitely flip flopped on the flag pin. Maybe you are oblivious to his position on flag lapel pins prior to this recent incident? You can read all about the flip flop at the LATimes' Top of the Ticket blog (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/obamaflagpinlap.html).

And on the Ayers deal, I said he "hosted a political get together" which is exactly what he did. I was somewhat vague because I couldn't remember the exact details, but your recitation sounds like the same thing I've heard before. Do you deny that Obama is very likely to have known about Ayers' past when he met with him on that day? Surely you don't.

Saggysack
04-17-2008, 11:02 AM
Oh jeez, Obama doesn't wear a flag pin. BFD. Maybe if you would quit wearing your flag pin on your shoulder and rather wear it in your heart you might just be able to begin to understand what I mean.

I just love how people judge their patriotism by how many shirts they own, or in this case a flag pin, that have an American flag on it. Buy more of those btw, China loves you for it.

Adept Havelock
04-17-2008, 11:06 AM
A flag pin is nothing more than a symbol, and to paraphrase Carlin, those that obsess over them are just symbol-minded.

A symbol is not the thing it represents. It's really sad how many people can't draw that distinction, IMO.

patteeu
04-17-2008, 11:07 AM
Oh jeez, Obama doesn't wear a flag pin. BFD. Maybe if you would quit wearing your flag pin on your shoulder and rather wear it in your heart you might just be able to begin to understand what I mean.

I just love how people judge their patriotism by how many shirts they own, or in this case a flag pin, that have an American flag on it. Buy more of those btw, China loves you for it.

Who are you talking to?

I don't think anyone here is judging Obama's patriotism on the basis of whether he wears a flag pin or not. He wore one last week and that didn't make me think he was any more patriotic than I thought he was before.

Donger
04-17-2008, 11:08 AM
Meh. The flag pin thing is silly, IMO.

I'd be more concerned that Barack Hussein is going to take your guns and your white women.

HolmeZz
04-17-2008, 11:11 AM
Who are you talking to?

I don't think anyone here is judging Obama's patriotism on the basis of whether he wears a flag pin or not. He wore one last week and that didn't make me think he was any more patriotic than I thought he was before.

It would've helped if you watched the f*cking debate then, seeing as you've spent the last 4 pages commenting on it.

They had a video question of a woman questioning Obama's patriotism because he doesn't wear a flag pin.

If Barack wanted to be an ass, he could've pointed out that Hillary wasn't wearing one. And if Gibson and Snuffleupagus weren't in the tank for Clinton, they too could've followed up with that.

HonestChieffan
04-17-2008, 11:17 AM
Did you happen to catch the exchange when Gibson asked Obama about his stand on raising the capital gains tax?

Gibson prefaced the question by pointing out that historically every time we have cut the capital gains tax, capital gains revenues have actually gone up, and that every time we've hiked the capital gains tax the revenues from it have gone down. Gibson added that with hundreds of thousands of Americans now holding investments affected by the capital gains tax, why raise the tax at all?

Obama said he wants to raise capital gains tax to 28%! The tax is currently at 15%, thanks to Bush. Obama tried to justify his position by pointing out that the capital gains tax was at 28% under Clinton. Gibson pointed out that actually Clinton lowered the capital gains tax from 28% to 20%, and Gibson again repeated the fact that when Clinton did this revenues from the tax rose.

Ignoring economic fact, Obama trotted out the "fairness" talking point and started whining that there are rich people whose income is mostly from capital gains income who thus only pay the current capital gains tax rate of 15% and that therefore we should raise the tax! Sheesh, Obama, but do you not understand that the capital gains activity from which those evil rich people profit spurs growth in the economy and that those same awful rich people pay the salaries and partially subsidize the benefits for hundreds and even thousands of middle-income people?

And you people are complaining that Obama was being put upon?

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 11:23 AM
There's definitely someone who's butt hurt here. I think it's obvious who it is.

Obama definitely flip flopped on the flag pin. Maybe you are oblivious to his position on flag lapel pins prior to this recent incident? You can read all about the flip flop at the LATimes' Top of the Ticket blog (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/obamaflagpinlap.html).

And on the Ayers deal, I said he "hosted a political get together" which is exactly what he did. I was somewhat vague because I couldn't remember the exact details, but your recitation sounds like the same thing I've heard before. Do you deny that Obama is very likely to have known about Ayers' past when he met with him on that day? Surely you don't.

Pat it would be considered a flip flop if he started wearing it everyday and totally changed his position. He didn't do that he wore it once because an Iraq veteran gave it to him at his speech. I am sure you find nothing wrong with that and don't consider that a flip.

I need to go find that picture that is floating out there of the Republican debates where only 2-3 candidates were wearing flag pins. The rest of them aren't patriots in pat's mind

As far as knowing Ayers I am sure prior to the meeting Alice Palmer gave the scoop on the guy but I would bet that he had no clue who he was prior to that. I bet 85-90% of the country didn't know who that guy was prior to Obama running. Also let's not forget Obama was in his 20's when he met the guy.

HolmeZz
04-17-2008, 11:24 AM
Hopefully what gets picked up on?

A blatant admission by a moderator(a former Clinton aide) during a debate that he wasn't going to question Hillary about something because she doesn't want to talk about it?

Obama definitely flip flopped on the flag pin. Maybe you are oblivious to his position on flag lapel pins prior to this recent incident?

You could've watched the debate last night. That way you wouldn't sound so retarded right now.

Barack didn't say he'd never put on a flag pin. He said he wasn't going to go around wearing one just as some faux sign of Patriotism.

The instance you're speaking of is after a Vet came up to him at an appearance and handed him a pin.

How you have the balls to call that a 'flip flop' after you sold your soul to defend Romney's position realignments is beyond me.

patteeu
04-17-2008, 11:26 AM
It would've helped if you watched the f*cking debate then, seeing as you've spent the last 4 pages commenting on it.

They had a video question of a woman questioning Obama's patriotism because he doesn't wear a flag pin.

If Barack wanted to be an ass, he could've pointed out that Hillary wasn't wearing one. And if Gibson and Snuffleupagus weren't in the tank for Clinton, they too could've followed up with that.

I haven't commented on the debate.

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 11:27 AM
Did you happen to catch the exchange when Gibson asked Obama about his stand on raising the capital gains tax?

Gibson prefaced the question by pointing out that historically every time we have cut the capital gains tax, capital gains revenues have actually gone up, and that every time we've hiked the capital gains tax the revenues from it have gone down. Gibson added that with hundreds of thousands of Americans now holding investments affected by the capital gains tax, why raise the tax at all?

Obama said he wants to raise capital gains tax to 28%! The tax is currently at 15%, thanks to Bush. Obama tried to justify his position by pointing out that the capital gains tax was at 28% under Clinton. Gibson pointed out that actually Clinton lowered the capital gains tax from 28% to 20%, and Gibson again repeated the fact that when Clinton did this revenues from the tax rose.

Ignoring economic fact, Obama trotted out the "fairness" talking point and started whining that there are rich people whose income is mostly from capital gains income who thus only pay the current capital gains tax rate of 15% and that therefore we should raise the tax! Sheesh, Obama, but do you not understand that the capital gains activity from which those evil rich people profit spurs growth in the economy and that those same awful rich people pay the salaries and partially subsidize the benefits for hundreds and even thousands of middle-income people?

And you people are complaining that Obama was being put upon?

I actually think that was a very fair question and have no problems with that. I think Obama's point is fair is we won't be able to fix the things we need without raising more revenue and cutting spending. He advocates pay-as-you go unlike the current President who takes his credit card to the bank of China.

I am sure you are ok with China pretty much owning the United States

HolmeZz
04-17-2008, 11:30 AM
I haven't commented on the debate.

You've been commenting on what you heard happened. That's what has led to your retarded questions/statements, most of which got answered during the debate.

patteeu
04-17-2008, 11:36 AM
Pat it would be considered a flip flop if he started wearing it everyday and totally changed his position. He didn't do that he wore it once because an Iraq veteran gave it to him at his speech. I am sure you find nothing wrong with that and don't consider that a flip.

I need to go find that picture that is floating out there of the Republican debates where only 2-3 candidates were wearing flag pins. The rest of them aren't patriots in pat's mind

When you declare that you don't wear flag lapel pins as a matter of principle and then, when it becomes politically inconvenient to stick with your position you decide to reverse yourself, it's a flip flop. It might not be the biggest, most important flip flop in the world, but it's a flip flop that took place over the course of a single campaign, not one that could reasonably be explained away as an evolution of the way you think about an issue.

I don't judge people's patriotism on the basis of whether they wear flag pins. This is the second time I've said that in this thread. I hope it gets past your Obama defense filters this time.

As far as knowing Ayers I am sure prior to the meeting Alice Palmer gave the scoop on the guy but I would bet that he had no clue who he was prior to that. I bet 85-90% of the country didn't know who that guy was prior to Obama running. Also let's not forget Obama was in his 20's when he met the guy.

I bet he knew who Ayers was without being briefed by Palmer, but either way, he knowingly sought the support of an unrepentant radical terrorist because said terrorist is a player in Chicago leftwing politics.

HonestChieffan
04-17-2008, 11:36 AM
I actually think that was a very fair question and have no problems with that. I think Obama's point is fair is we won't be able to fix the things we need without raising more revenue and cutting spending. He advocates pay-as-you go unlike the current President who takes his credit card to the bank of China.

I am sure you are ok with China pretty much owning the United States

So raising taxes on cap gains will somehow impact China?

patteeu
04-17-2008, 11:39 AM
I actually think that was a very fair question and have no problems with that. I think Obama's point is fair is we won't be able to fix the things we need without raising more revenue and cutting spending. He advocates pay-as-you go unlike the current President who takes his credit card to the bank of China.

I am sure you are ok with China pretty much owning the United States

Based on HonestChiefFan's post, it's not apparent to me that Obama made a case for raising revenue. He was confronted with a question premised on the idea that revenues would decrease and instead of saying "no no that's wrong, revenues will actually rise" he took a social justice slant instead. Am I getting the wrong impression of what happened?

patteeu
04-17-2008, 11:42 AM
You've been commenting on what you heard happened. That's what has led to your retarded questions/statements, most of which got answered during the debate.

I've asked questions and I've responded to other people's posts. I've also discussed Obama's campaign but nothing specifically tied to the debate. My last post was the closest I've come to addressing the debate and in that post I clearly say that I'm basing my statement on HonestChieffan's description of the event.

Can you give me an example of how one of my questions was answered during the debate?

HolmeZz
04-17-2008, 11:42 AM
When you declare that you don't wear flag lapel pins as a matter of principle and then, when it becomes politically inconvenient to stick with your position you decide to reverse yourself, it's a flip flop.

Cut the ****ing shit, Pat. You aren't this unintelligent. This got talked about at the debate. He never said he'd never wear a pin. What he said was that the pin has become a fake sign of patriotism and that he doesn't need to display his patriotism that way.

The instance you keep pointing to was where he got handed a pin by a veteran and he put it on.

If Barack cared about the pin in terms of potential backlash, he would've always worn the friggin' pin from the beginning. Or at the very least he would've started wearing one a while ago.

HolmeZz
04-17-2008, 11:48 AM
Can you give me an example of how one of my questions was answered during the debate?

You said no one's equating Obama's patriotism with wearing a flag pin. That's exactly what happened at the debate.

You said Obama had flip-flopped on wearing the pin, when at the debate he clearly explained he put the pin on at that event because it was handed to him by a Vet.

Obama also answered the Ayers stuff in the debate and made George look stupid for taking his cue from Sean Hannity and bringing it up.

patteeu
04-17-2008, 11:52 AM
A blatant admission by a moderator(a former Clinton aide) during a debate that he wasn't going to question Hillary about something because she doesn't want to talk about it?

LMAO Oh that. He's not asking her about it because he knows the answer is going to be some form of "it's none of your business" and he also knows that most of his audience will agree with that sentiment.

You could've watched the debate last night. That way you wouldn't sound so retarded right now.

Barack didn't say he'd never put on a flag pin. He said he wasn't going to go around wearing one just as some faux sign of Patriotism.

The instance you're speaking of is after a Vet came up to him at an appearance and handed him a pin.

How you have the balls to call that a 'flip flop' after you sold your soul to defend Romney's position realignments is beyond me.

He said he said he wasn't going to wear the lapel pin because it had become a substitute for true patriotism. He was going to teach us about patriotism by describing his feelings for the country instead of using cheap symbols:


"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.

"Instead," Obama added rather grandiosely, "I'm going to try to tell....

the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

I think it's a flip flop. You may just call it pandering or, given your Obama faith you might even believe its simply coincidence that he received a flag pin from a vet right after igniting a brouhaha over his elitist attitudes, but IMO it's a flip flop.

patteeu
04-17-2008, 11:56 AM
You said no one's equating Obama's patriotism with wearing a flag pin. That's exactly what happened at the debate.

No I didn't. I said, "I don't think anyone here is judging Obama's patriotism on the basis of whether he wears a flag pin or not." I didn't say anything about what happened at the debate.

You said Obama had flip-flopped on wearing the pin, when at the debate he clearly explained he put the pin on at that event because it was handed to him by a Vet.

He did flip flop. I wouldn't quibble if you'd rather call it pandering though. I don't know why it matters who handed it to him.

Obama also answered the Ayers stuff in the debate and made George look stupid for taking his cue from Sean Hannity and bringing it up.

Was his "answer" as unconvincing as his answer to the Jeremiah Wright association?

jettio
04-17-2008, 11:58 AM
thats your opinion ~ nothing more~nothing less

Your boy is not the messiah.


Whatever, I watched the Steelers-Seahawks superbowl and have the well-founded opinion that the Seahawks chances in that game were unfairly impacted by the officials, who had a bad habit of throwing flags on very questionable penalty calls on several key plays.

You might as well post that you did not watch that Superbowl game, but you figure that anybody who believes that the officials did a poor job that day and affected the outcome, must be Seahawks fans.

You go ahead and put a clown suit on yourself and form a strong opinion about something that you admittedly did not witness. That kind of pea-brained thinking got our country in its current predicament.

HonestChieffan
04-17-2008, 11:58 AM
deflection of substantive issues by focusing on his lapel pin is not wise. Daily, his strength erodes.

HolmeZz
04-17-2008, 12:00 PM
LMAO Oh that. He's not asking her about it because he knows the answer is going to be some form of "it's none of your business" and he also knows that most of his audience will agree with that sentiment.

If she said 'none of your business' about whether or not she said Obama couldn't win, then that would've invalidated her actual response to the question which was that Obama could win. She would've been on the record saying that.

Furthermore, you don't not ask a question to someone in a debate because it'll make the person uncomfortable. Maybe Snuffleupagus shouldn't have asked Obama about Wright or Ayers because he knew Obama didn't want to talk about it. How would that have come off?

The debate was rancid. Hillary was allowed to skate in terms of the questioning, was let off the hook on Bosnia, and didn't even have to address Mark Penn pushing the Colombian trade agreement. Meanwhile Obama actually had to tell Gibson to shut the hell up because he continued interrupting him.

I think it's a flip flop. You may just call it pandering or, given your Obama faith you might even believe its simply coincidence that he received a flag pin from a vet right after igniting a brouhaha over his elitist attitudes, but IMO it's a flip flop.

You aren't this big of a dumbass, Pat.

If he cared about political backlash from not wearing the pin, why didn't he wear it from the beginning?

Why didn't he wear a pin in the debate last night if he had flip-flopped?

Donger
04-17-2008, 12:02 PM
That kind of pea-brained thinking got our country in its current predicament.

More elitism. Nice.

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 12:02 PM
So raising taxes on cap gains will somehow impact China?

I know this is complicated for you but he said he would consider raising the rate so we could revenue to pay for things like healthcare, fixing the countries infrastructure, etc. He believes in pay as you go unlike Bush who just decides to keep borrowing from China.

I am sure you are happy that we are financing the WOT with China's money.

BucEyedPea
04-17-2008, 12:05 PM
Originally Posted by jettio
That kind of pea-brained thinking got our country in its current predicament.
Hey! Watch ye'r language.

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 12:05 PM
When you declare that you don't wear flag lapel pins as a matter of principle and then, when it becomes politically inconvenient to stick with your position you decide to reverse yourself, it's a flip flop. It might not be the biggest, most important flip flop in the world, but it's a flip flop that took place over the course of a single campaign, not one that could reasonably be explained away as an evolution of the way you think about an issue.

I don't judge people's patriotism on the basis of whether they wear flag pins. This is the second time I've said that in this thread. I hope it gets past your Obama defense filters this time.



Obviously you don't know what a flip flop is since you supported Romney.

Doing something once out of respect is not a flip flop or a change in position. I know this is a simple concept that is hard to grasp for you.

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 12:08 PM
Based on HonestChiefFan's post, it's not apparent to me that Obama made a case for raising revenue. He was confronted with a question premised on the idea that revenues would decrease and instead of saying "no no that's wrong, revenues will actually rise" he took a social justice slant instead. Am I getting the wrong impression of what happened?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.
<!-- sidebar --><!-- today in links -->
http://www.iht.com/images/dot_h.gif

<!-- /today in links --><!-- 170 x 60 ad --> <script type="text/javascript"> ord = Math.random() * 10000000000000000; document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="http://ad.fr.doubleclick.net/adj/americas.iht.com/article;cat=article;sz=190x90;ord=' + ord + '?"><' + '/' + 'script>'); </script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://ad.fr.doubleclick.net/adj/americas.iht.com/article;cat=article;sz=190x90;ord=7626591588502921?"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://ad.fr.doubleclick.net/adj/americas.iht.com/article;cat=article;sz=190x90;ord=5122948434261452?"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> if ((!document.images && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mozilla/2.') >= 0)|| navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV") >= 0){ document.write('http://ad.fr.doubleclick.net/ad/americas.iht.com/article;cat=article;sz=190x90;ord=123456789? (http://ad.fr.doubleclick.net/jump/americas.iht.com/article;cat=article;sz=190x90;ord=123456789?)'); } </script> <noscript>http://ad.fr.doubleclick.net/ad/americas.iht.com/article;cat=article;sz=190x90;ord=123456789? (http://ad.fr.doubleclick.net/jump/americas.iht.com/article;cat=article;sz=190x90;ord=123456789?)</noscript>
<!-- /170 x 60 ad -->
<!-- /sidebar --> And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.
And you can't do that for free, and you can't take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren and then say that you're cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible.

Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness....[And as to higher rates bringing in less revenue], well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going.... ...And if we can stabilize that market and we can get credit flowing again, then I think we'll see stocks do well, and once again I think we can generate the revenue that we need to run this government and hopefully to pay down some of this debt.

jettio
04-17-2008, 12:08 PM
Why do you mention skin color in this context?

The man is the front-runner for President. I never saw any President or winning Presidential candidate treated so disrespectfully in a candidate's debate. Interrupting answers and then arguing against the answers.

It may be youth as much as race, but until I ever see anyone else ever pull that sh*t again, I am right to believe that Gibson and Stephanapolous found it a lot easier to disrespect a young black candidate in a Presidential debate.

I can't imagine anyone pulling that kind of sh*t against any of our Presidents, this was not a Presidential press conference, this was a candidate's debate.

Ask a fair question and let them answer. A moderator is not supposed to interrupt an answer and argue against the substance of the answer. A moderator can re-ask an evaded question, but that is way out of line to establish guidelines for the time to answer and then step on the guy's words and argue against the answer in a candidate's debate.

HonestChieffan
04-17-2008, 12:11 PM
Stupid bastard. The funds made 29 not the 50 guys running it. Good God.Secretaries who invest in stock pay the same cap gain tax dillweed.

vailpass
04-17-2008, 12:11 PM
The man is the front-runner for President. I never saw any President or winning Presidential candidate treated so disrespectfully in a candidate's debate. Interrupting answers and then arguing against the answers.

It may be youth as much as race, but until I ever see anyone else ever pull that sh*t again, I am right to believe that Gibson and Stephanapolous found it a lot easier to disrespect a young black candidate in a Presidential debate.

I can't imagine anyone pulling that kind of sh*t against any of our Presidents, this was not a Presidential press conference, this was a candidate's debate.

Ask a fair question and let them answer. A moderator is not supposed to interrupt an answer and argue against the substance of the answer. A moderator can re-ask an evaded question, but that is way out of line to establish guidelines for the time to answer and then step on the guy's words and argue against the answer in a candidate's debate.

So you interpret any treatment towards Obama that you deem unfair by the moderators in last night's debate as being racially motivated? There is no other possible explanation?

HolmeZz
04-17-2008, 12:13 PM
Had nothing to do with race. Had everything to do with ABC wanting ratings and Snuffleupagus still being on the Clinton payroll.

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 12:18 PM
Had nothing to do with race.

Totally agree. I thought some questions were fair others not so much

vailpass
04-17-2008, 12:18 PM
Had nothing to do with race. Had everything to do with ABC wanting ratings and Snuffleupagus still being on the Clinton payroll.

Stating that a person was treated in a specific way due to the skin color of all parties involved has "nothing to do with race"? (not you, Jettio's statement)

It is clear what Jettio was saying: "Homey got disrespected by whitey. Get us a couple a brotha's up in this mothu***** to do tha moderatin and let the Nubian savior spit da truth".

This is EXACTLY what I have stated all along: like it or not Obama makes this election about race by his very presence and thus detracts from the real issues at hand.

jettio
04-17-2008, 12:20 PM
Had nothing to do with race. Had everything to do with ABC wanting ratings and Snuffleupagus still being on the Clinton payroll.


Whether it has to do with race or not, it definitely has something to do with not showing proper respect and dignity to the person who is the odds-on favorite to be the next President.

Obama is entitled to the respect that everyone else in that position has been shown. I don't see what he has done to warrant having his answers interrupted and argued against by a moderator in a debate.

HolmeZz
04-17-2008, 12:22 PM
I'm not Jettio. I was stating my opinion.

This wasn't a matter of race. It was about the embarrassing display put on by ABC in an attempt to get ratings and make news.

patteeu
04-17-2008, 12:23 PM
If she said 'none of your business' about whether or not she said Obama couldn't win, then that would've invalidated her actual response to the question which was that Obama could win. She would've been on the record saying that.

Furthermore, you don't not ask a question to someone in a debate because it'll make the person uncomfortable. Maybe Snuffleupagus shouldn't have asked Obama about Wright or Ayers because he knew Obama didn't want to talk about it. How would that have come off?

The debate was rancid. Hillary was allowed to skate in terms of the questioning, was let off the hook on Bosnia, and didn't even have to address Mark Penn pushing the Colombian trade agreement. Meanwhile Obama actually had to tell Gibson to shut the hell up because he continued interrupting him.

The key concept that you're missing here is that most Americans would agree that badgering Hillary about what she was doing/thinking when Bill was boffing the intern is bad taste and unnecessary whereas most Americans think that questions about Obama's relationships with radicals like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers are relevant and appropriate.

You aren't this big of a dumbass, Pat.

If he cared about political backlash from not wearing the pin, why didn't he wear it from the beginning?

Why didn't he wear a pin in the debate last night if he had flip-flopped?

The obvious answer is that at the time, he thought it was politically advantageous to take the flag pin off, presumably to appeal to the antiwar constituents of his party. Later, after running into the PR mess surrounding his condescension toward rural Americans, he must have decided it would do him well to put a flag pin on for at least a day.

patteeu
04-17-2008, 12:25 PM
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.
<!-- sidebar --><!-- today in links -->
http://www.iht.com/images/dot_h.gif

<!-- /today in links --><!-- 170 x 60 ad --> <script type="text/javascript"> ord = Math.random() * 10000000000000000; document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="http://ad.fr.doubleclick.net/adj/americas.iht.com/article;cat=article;sz=190x90;ord=' + ord + '?"><' + '/' + 'script>'); </script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://ad.fr.doubleclick.net/adj/americas.iht.com/article;cat=article;sz=190x90;ord=7626591588502921?"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://ad.fr.doubleclick.net/adj/americas.iht.com/article;cat=article;sz=190x90;ord=5122948434261452?"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> if ((!document.images && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mozilla/2.') >= 0)|| navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV") >= 0){ document.write('http://ad.fr.doubleclick.net/ad/americas.iht.com/article;cat=article;sz=190x90;ord=123456789? (http://ad.fr.doubleclick.net/jump/americas.iht.com/article;cat=article;sz=190x90;ord=123456789?)'); } </script> <noscript>http://ad.fr.doubleclick.net/ad/americas.iht.com/article;cat=article;sz=190x90;ord=123456789? (http://ad.fr.doubleclick.net/jump/americas.iht.com/article;cat=article;sz=190x90;ord=123456789?)</noscript>
<!-- /170 x 60 ad -->
<!-- /sidebar --> And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.
And you can't do that for free, and you can't take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren and then say that you're cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible.

Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness....[And as to higher rates bringing in less revenue], well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going.... ...And if we can stabilize that market and we can get credit flowing again, then I think we'll see stocks do well, and once again I think we can generate the revenue that we need to run this government and hopefully to pay down some of this debt.

Well there you have it. He's for raising the cap gains tax for fairness not because of an expected rise in revenues.

Direckshun
04-17-2008, 12:27 PM
The obvious answer is that at the time, he thought it was politically advantageous to take the flag pin off, presumably to appeal to the antiwar constituents of his party.
That is a special kind of retarded.

patteeu
04-17-2008, 12:27 PM
So you interpret any treatment towards Obama that you deem unfair by the moderators in last night's debate as being racially motivated? There is no other possible explanation?

He's kind of race-focused isn't he?

patteeu
04-17-2008, 12:29 PM
That is a special kind of retarded.

I think it's pretty obvious. I'm shocked that there are actually people who can't recognize things like this.

HolmeZz
04-17-2008, 12:30 PM
The key concept that you're missing here is that most Americans would agree that badgering Hillary about what she was doing/thinking when Bill was boffing the intern is bad taste and unnecessary whereas most Americans think that questions about Obama's relationships with radicals like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers are relevant and appropriate.

What the f*ck are you talking about?

This was about Bill Richardson calling up Hillary to tell her he was endorsing Obama. That isn't off-limits.


The obvious answer is that at the time, he thought it was politically advantageous to take the flag pin off, presumably to appeal to the antiwar constituents of his party.

Retarded. I haven't heard anyone on the Left criticizing their candidates for wearing a pin. He took the position because that's how he felt. Clearly it isn't an advantageous stance to take politically, but he thinks there are bigger issues. He's not the anti-war candidate because he doesn't wear a pin. He's anti-war because he was against it before it started.

Later, after running into the PR mess surrounding his condescension toward rural Americans, he must have decided it would do him well to put a flag pin on for at least a day.

I'll never understand why you resort to acting this stupid. You think Obama was attempting to put the flag pin issue to rest by putting it on at some little non-publicized campaign event? LMAO

Why didn't he wear one at the debate last night?

Cut the crap, Pat.

vailpass
04-17-2008, 12:30 PM
He's kind of race-focused isn't he?

It is the hallmark of the Great & Unifying Obama Hussein Obama campaign.

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 12:31 PM
Ayers is just acquaintance and someone who he served on a board with and they live in the same neighborhood. Big deal.

Also he has not abandoned wearing the flag lapel he just put it on the other day because a Iraq veteran gave it to him. He didn't have one on last night . DUH.

Ayers held a FUNDRAISER FOR OBAMA IN HIS HOME when BO was running for state senate...

Big deal, indeed.

vailpass
04-17-2008, 12:31 PM
I'm not Jettio. I was stating my opinion.

This wasn't a matter of race. It was about the embarrassing display put on by ABC in an attempt to get ratings and make news.

Understood.

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 12:38 PM
Well there you have it. He's for raising the cap gains tax for fairness not because of an expected rise in revenues.

?

that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.

Ultra Peanut
04-17-2008, 12:38 PM
I just can't get over how unbelievably awful that was. From Charles Gibson getting laughed out of the building, to Hillary trying to draw a connection between a fellow Democrat and Hamas, to the surreal quality of George Stephanopoaslasadoswalus asking a question submitted by Sean Hannity... it was a night for the ages in all the wrong ways.

MSNBC's Vegas debate was terrible, but it was leagues above this.

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 12:40 PM
He's kind of race-focused isn't he?

As is vali. It is no wonder most people on this board think he is a closet racist because that is all he talks about

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 12:46 PM
I just can't get over how unbelievably awful that was. From Charles Gibson getting laughed out of the building, to Hillary trying to draw a connection between a fellow Democrat and Hamas, to the surreal quality of George Stephanopoaslasadoswalus asking a question submitted by Sean Hannity... it was a night for the ages in all the wrong ways.

MSNBC's Vegas debate was terrible, but it was leagues above this.

You are right, the Hamas connection was incorrect. Hillary probably meant to mention Obama's PLO connection. :doh!:

Ultra Peanut
04-17-2008, 12:53 PM
I also heard he hates America. Why else wouldn't he wear a flag lapel pin?

vailpass
04-17-2008, 01:16 PM
As is vali. It is no wonder most people on this board think he is a closet racist because that is all he talks about

I do not. Now shut up wigger.

Cave Johnson
04-17-2008, 01:34 PM
Ayers held a FUNDRAISER FOR OBAMA IN HIS HOME when BO was running for state senate...

Big deal, indeed.

And Barry used to proceeds to make bombs, just like Ayers taught him.

DON'T YOU GET IT, PEOPLE! WAKE UP!

Cave Johnson
04-17-2008, 01:34 PM
As is vali. It is no wonder most people on this board think he is a closet racist because that is all he talks about

Closet?

NewChief
04-17-2008, 01:42 PM
Nice response from Barack today at a rally:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Obama_on_debate_Senator_Clinton_looked_in_her_element.html
I will tell you it does not get more fun than these debates. They are inspiring debates. I think last night we set a new record because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people.

It took us 45 minutes ó 45 minutes before we heard about health care, 45 minutes before we heard about Iraq, 45 minutes before we heard about jobs, 45 minutes before we heard about gas prices.

Now, I donít blame Washington for this because thatís just how Washington is. They like stirring up controversies and getting us to play gotcha games and getting us to attack each other. And Iíve got to say Sen. Clinton looked in her element.

She was taking every opportunity to, you know, get a dig in there.... Thatís all right, thatís her right, thatís her right to kind of twist the knife a little bit....

Look, I understand though, because thatís the textbook Washington campaign, because thatís the politics thatís been taught to be played, thatís the lesson that she had heard when the Republicans were doing the same things to her back in the 1990s.

Donger
04-17-2008, 01:45 PM
Nice response from Barack today at a rally:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Obama_on_debate_Senator_Clinton_looked_in_her_element.html
I will tell you it does not get more fun than these debates. They are inspiring debates. I think last night we set a new record because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people.

It took us 45 minutes ó 45 minutes before we heard about health care, 45 minutes before we heard about Iraq, 45 minutes before we heard about jobs, 45 minutes before we heard about gas prices.

Now, I donít blame Washington for this because thatís just how Washington is. They like stirring up controversies and getting us to play gotcha games and getting us to attack each other. And Iíve got to say Sen. Clinton looked in her element.

She was taking every opportunity to, you know, get a dig in there.... Thatís all right, thatís her right, thatís her right to kind of twist the knife a little bit....

Look, I understand though, because thatís the textbook Washington campaign, because thatís the politics thatís been taught to be played, thatís the lesson that she had heard when the Republicans were doing the same things to her back in the 1990s.

Wait: is this the vast, right-wing conspiracy or the vast, left-wing conspiracy? The vast, anti-Barack Hussein conspiracy?

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 02:01 PM
I do not. Now shut up wigger.

Everytime I see one of your posts it is usually about race.

patteeu
04-17-2008, 02:19 PM
What the f*ck are you talking about?

This was about Bill Richardson calling up Hillary to tell her he was endorsing Obama. That isn't off-limits.

Wow, that must have seemed strange to you. All this time (since post #69), I've been on the wrong track here. When you answered my question in post #69, it had been a while since I asked it and I mixed up what you said way back in post #14 (where you discussed the Richardson question) with what dirk digler said in post #40:

Do you think it is a fair question to ask someone in a presidential debate if they are patriotic? The Bill Ayers question was stupid as well because just because he knows the guy and served on a board with doesn't mean he hangs out with and goes on bombing runs.

If they are going to ask about Bill Ayers they need to ask Hillary what was she doing in the WH while Bill was ****ing Monica

All this time I was thinking we were talking about a question about what Hillary was doing while Bill was "****ing Monica". :redface:

patteeu
04-17-2008, 02:27 PM
Retarded. I haven't heard anyone on the Left criticizing their candidates for wearing a pin. He took the position because that's how he felt. Clearly it isn't an advantageous stance to take politically, but he thinks there are bigger issues. He's not the anti-war candidate because he doesn't wear a pin. He's anti-war because he was against it before it started.

I couldn't disagree more. How many times have we seen an antiwar ChiefsPlanet member ridicule or otherwise demean people who have patriotic magnetic ribbons on their car? It's no secret that flag lapel pins are less popular among the antiwar left than they are in other voting constituencies. This isn't even close to the first time Obama has reversed course on a war-related issue though. He's been all over the place on the war.

I'll never understand why you resort to acting this stupid. You think Obama was attempting to put the flag pin issue to rest by putting it on at some little non-publicized campaign event? LMAO

Why didn't he wear one at the debate last night?

Cut the crap, Pat.

:shrug: I think Obama made a political calculation and decided to put the pin on as a result of that calculation. I don't think he is guided by a principle of any kind here other than the principle of what he thinks will earn him the most votes.

vailpass
04-17-2008, 02:30 PM
Everytime I see one of your posts it is usually about race.

I've been talking football here since before you joined this board. Racial discussions constitute a small percentage of my posts. I'm working on upping my poop thread count but that's another discussion.

I discuss whatever the current topic happens to be. For instance if you will look at the thread starter you will see the topic of race included (white boys).

Is it o.k. for some to bring up race but wrong for others to note the topic once it arises?

Have you not seen me state on numerous occasions that I loathe the fact that becasue Obama is a candidate race is discussed instead of the important, critical issues facing our next POTUS?

Nothing sickens me more than the way racism is being thrown around by some in the most hypocritical fashion imaginable.

jettio
04-17-2008, 02:49 PM
That is a special kind of retarded.


patteeu has a real f*cked up view of people and his country, he does backflips over stupid sh*t like flag pins and assumes the worst of a man who has done a lot more to help other people in his life than patteeu would ever hope to do, yet he can't figure out that B*sh is a sorry lying sack of Raiduhs who pretended to be afraid of a broke-dick Saddam and that UN inspections would not nullify the threat of WMD.

A lot more people have died behind that sorry sack of Raiduhs B*sh's dumbazz idea to have a war for fun and games and sh*ts and giggles when he was not truly afraid and patteeu loves B*sh unconditionally. This country is going to be a lot better when patteeu's team hits the showers.

patteeu is cynical towards people who have dedicated years of their lives to help other people improve themselves and ga-ga-goo-goo over dishonorable sacks of Raiduhs who make dishonest and dumbazz decisions that get a lot of people dead, maimed and/or permanently damaged by the trauma of war.

jettio
04-17-2008, 02:55 PM
Hey! Watch ye'r language.


Have to admit, it took me a while to figure that out. I think your brain works real good but I am not a neurologist so you better get a second opinion.

Direckshun
04-17-2008, 02:57 PM
patteeu has a real f*cked up view of people and his country, he does backflips over stupid sh*t like flag pins and assumes the worst of a man who has done a lot more to help other people in his life than patteeu would ever hope to do, yet he can't figure out that B*sh is a sorry lying sack of Raiduhs who pretended to be afraid of a broke-dick Saddam and that UN inspections would not nullify the threat of WMD.

A lot more people have died behind that sorry sack of Raiduhs B*sh's dumbazz idea to have a war for fun and games and sh*ts and giggles when he was not truly afraid and patteeu loves B*sh unconditionally. This country is going to be a lot better when patteeu's team hits the showers.

patteeu is cynical towards people who have dedicated years of their lives to help other people improve themselves and ga-ga-goo-goo over dishonorable sacks of Raiduhs who make dishonest and dumbazz decisions that get a lot of people dead, maimed and/or permanently damaged by the trauma of war.
ROFL

Man. I hear you and everything but it's your delivery that cracks me up.

jettio
04-17-2008, 03:00 PM
I've been talking football here since before you joined this board. Racial discussions constitute a small percentage of my posts. I'm working on upping my poop thread count but that's another discussion.

I discuss whatever the current topic happens to be. For instance if you will look at the thread starter you will see the topic of race included (white boys).

Is it o.k. for some to bring up race but wrong for others to note the topic once it arises?

Have you not seen me state on numerous occasions that I loathe the fact that becasue Obama is a candidate race is discussed instead of the important, critical issues facing our next POTUS?

Nothing sickens me more than the way racism is being thrown around by some in the most hypocritical fashion imaginable.


keyword search: racist or racism
same time as
username search: vailpass

I don't know if the search feature has been fixed but you said all you needed to say about yourself in the threads that pop up under those search terms.


Might as well fix yourself or stay who you are, no sense adding hypocrite or phony to your reputation.

vailpass
04-17-2008, 03:04 PM
keyword search: racist or racism
same time as
username search: vailpass

I don't know if the search feature has been fixed but you said all you needed to say about yourself in the threads that pop up under those search terms.


Might as well fix yourself or stay who you are, no sense adding hypocrite or phony to your reputation.

Yeah motha****a tell it like it is! Powa to tha peoples!
You are a clown. Trying to paint others as racist when you are the biggest racist on this board.
Others may be afraid to say it but I am not; I'll gladly call a spade a spade and you are a pure racist.

Radar Chief
04-17-2008, 03:10 PM
Yeah motha****a tell it like it is! Powa to tha peoples!
You are a clown. Trying to paint others as racist when you are the biggest racist on this board.
Others may be afraid to say it but I am not; I'll gladly call a spade a spade and you are a pure racist.

And a pustulated vag to boot.
Iím actually surprised he kept it together this long without flipping out and calling everyone disagreeing with him racist.

jettio
04-17-2008, 03:21 PM
And a pustulated vag to boot.
Iím actually surprised he kept it together this long without flipping out and calling everyone disagreeing with him racist.

vailpass, FringeNC, kc wolfman, and perhaps, hog farmer, MO Hillbilly and Indy Chief, are the only posters that I remember giving me the impression that they have some serious issues being NFL fans at the same time they were all twisted up about black folks.

There are a significant number of black players in the NFL and those guys seem to have a dilemna because of what they have posted.

I don't immediately recall any other posters who have created that impression, but I just post what I believe about whatever topic I post about and I call people out on the issue of race because I don't want chiefsplanet to be a place where people who have racist attitudes think that sh*t is welcome.

vailpass
04-17-2008, 03:39 PM
vailpass, FringeNC, kc wolfman, and perhaps, hog farmer, MO Hillbilly and Indy Chief, are the only posters that I remember giving me the impression that they have some serious issues being NFL fans at the same time they were all twisted up about black folks.

There are a significant number of black players in the NFL and those guys seem to have a dilemna because of what they have posted.

I don't immediately recall any other posters who have created that impression, but I just post what I believe about whatever topic I post about and I call people out on the issue of race because I don't want chiefsplanet to be a place where people who have racist attitudes think that sh*t is welcome.

1. Show me a quote to back up your position that I have a problem with black people playing pro ball. You poor bastard you've walked out on a limb and it is breaking off behind you.
If you can't show me a quote backing up your accusation I expect you have enough balls to apologize for a false accusation.

2."I call people out on the issue of race because I don't want chiefsplanet to be a place where people who have racist attitudes think that sh*t is welcome."
That is one of the funniest things I've ever seen here. Jettio, the king of the race card, now proclaims himself to be the defender of the Planet against racism. How do you explain your starting post in this thread where you use the term "white guys". Do you deny that is racist?

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 03:43 PM
I've been talking football here since before you joined this board. Racial discussions constitute a small percentage of my posts. I'm working on upping my poop thread count but that's another discussion.

I discuss whatever the current topic happens to be. For instance if you will look at the thread starter you will see the topic of race included (white boys).

Is it o.k. for some to bring up race but wrong for others to note the topic once it arises?

Have you not seen me state on numerous occasions that I loathe the fact that becasue Obama is a candidate race is discussed instead of the important, critical issues facing our next POTUS?

Nothing sickens me more than the way racism is being thrown around by some in the most hypocritical fashion imaginable.

I was just making an observation but it just seems lately all I have seen from you are posts about race and making comments like you wouldn't support someone who sounded like Wheezy but would support a white junkie doesn't help you any.

vailpass
04-17-2008, 03:50 PM
I was just making an observation but it just seems lately all I have seen from you are posts about race and making comments like you wouldn't support someone who sounded like Wheezy but would support a white junkie doesn't help you any.

You assume I need help? Please. You haven't been around long enough to know I'll say what it takes to get under the skin of those with whom I disagree? Hell I'll even do it just to get a rise when I'm bored. But by no means will I stand by and listen to someone spout racism and feel they can get away with it because they aren't white.
Bullshit on that.

jettio
04-17-2008, 03:54 PM
1. Show me a quote to back up your position that I have a problem with black people playing pro ball. You poor bastard you've walked out on a limb and it is breaking off behind you.
If you can't show me a quote backing up your accusation I expect you have enough balls to apologize for a false accusation.

2."I call people out on the issue of race because I don't want chiefsplanet to be a place where people who have racist attitudes think that sh*t is welcome."
That is one of the funniest things I've ever seen here. Jettio, the king of the race card, now proclaims himself to be the defender of the Planet against racism. How do you explain your starting post in this thread where you use the term "white guys". Do you deny that is racist?

You sure are a lot more froggy now that the search feature has changed.

Folks here know me and they know you.

I like to use the ignore feature when people with your level of posting talent start taking things personal and get personal themselves.

I am just going to go ahead and add you to my ignore list and make sure that I don't miss you.

vailpass
04-17-2008, 03:54 PM
You sure are a lot more froggy now that the search feature has changed.

Folks here know me and they know you.

I like to use the ignore feature when people with your level of posting talent start taking things personal and get personal themselves.

I am just going to go ahead and add you to my ignore list and make sure that I don't miss you.

Your surrender is accepted.
'Bye now.

Cave Johnson
04-17-2008, 03:55 PM
So, vail.... go to the 2:30 mark of theis video. I guess you couldn't call this whigger, since he's only 1/2 white.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FlR9DNfqGD4&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FlR9DNfqGD4&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

I heard that's his secret code to tell the homies he's pro-reparations.

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 04:01 PM
You assume I need help? Please. You haven't been around long enough to know I'll say what it takes to get under the skin of those with whom I disagree? Hell I'll even do it just to get a rise when I'm bored. But by no means will I stand by and listen to someone spout racism and feel they can get away with it because they aren't white.
Bullshit on that.

WOW you have been here a whole 1 1/2 years longer then me but I have double the posts so I am a better member than some stupid Donkey fag fan. :rolleyes:

I think people perceive you as racist or having problems with certain races.

vailpass
04-17-2008, 04:29 PM
WOW you have been here a whole 1 1/2 years longer then me but I have double the posts so I am a better member than some stupid Donkey Rump Ranger fan. :rolleyes:

I think people perceive you as racist or having problems with certain races.

I must not have been clear in my post. I would never play the "I've been here longer so FU noob" lame game. I'm sorry if you took it that way. I've always enjoyed your posts as well as your user name.

I was just fugging around with you. Maybe I'll go work on my poop thread for a while. I wish poop was white though I hate talking about it because most of it is brown or maybe even black God forbid.

vailpass
04-17-2008, 04:30 PM
So, vail.... go to the 2:30 mark of theis video. I guess you couldn't call this whigger, since he's only 1/2 white.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FlR9DNfqGD4&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FlR9DNfqGD4&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

I heard that's his secret code to tell the homies he's pro-reparations.

You seem a little too smart to fall for my whigger rap.

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 04:38 PM
I must not have been clear in my post. I would never play the "I've been here longer so FU noob" lame game. I'm sorry if you took it that way. I've always enjoyed your posts as well as your user name.

I was just fugging around with you. Maybe I'll go work on my poop thread for a while. I wish poop was white though I hate talking about it because most of it is brown or maybe even black God forbid.

No you weren't clear and I have always liked your posts as well.

I would rather talk about poop or how bad the Donkeys are going to kill the Chiefs this year

Adept Havelock
04-17-2008, 05:04 PM
I wish poop was white though I hate talking about it because most of it is brown or maybe even black God forbid.

ROFL Nice...

Saggysack
04-18-2008, 02:15 AM
Who are you talking to?

I don't think anyone here is judging Obama's patriotism on the basis of whether he wears a flag pin or not. He wore one last week and that didn't make me think he was any more patriotic than I thought he was before.

Don't play stupid, it's demeaning to your intelligence.

I'm talking to you(as per your comments throughout this thread) and people like you as you well know that. It's okay though, I deal with people like it on a daily basis. I'm quite used to the mentality.
Here is a good example of one of them. My FiL has devoted his entire voting life to vote for the letter beside someones name rather than the policies that underline it. He is a person that has a few dozen flag shirts, flag magnets stuck on the backend of his vehicle, a newspaper printed american flag taped up in the front window of his house, a flag pole, etc... 90% made in China. It makes me wonder why someone feels the need to flaunt their percieved patriotism to the world. Who exactly are you trying to convince, me or yourself? But to get what really is my point...

If you aren't questioning his patriotism, why even bring it up? What would be the purpose of it? If there isn't a motivation behind the statement, shouldn't it rank right up there with stating that a person wears a yellow short sleeve shirt instead purple tank top. Please don't tell me your politics have lowered to the point where you rely on such meaningless things.

BucEyedPea
04-18-2008, 06:26 AM
If you aren't questioning his patriotism, why even bring it up?

Because the absence of those symbols is like a gold star label on someone.

patteeu
04-18-2008, 07:56 AM
Don't play stupid, it's demeaning to your intelligence.

I'm talking to you(as per your comments throughout this thread) and people like you as you well know that. It's okay though, I deal with people like it on a daily basis. I'm quite used to the mentality.
Here is a good example of one of them. My FiL has devoted his entire voting life to vote for the letter beside someones name rather than the policies that underline it. He is a person that has a few dozen flag shirts, flag magnets stuck on the backend of his vehicle, a newspaper printed american flag taped up in the front window of his house, a flag pole, etc... 90% made in China. It makes me wonder why someone feels the need to flaunt their percieved patriotism to the world. Who exactly are you trying to convince, me or yourself? But to get what really is my point...

If you aren't questioning his patriotism, why even bring it up? What would be the purpose of it? If there isn't a motivation behind the statement, shouldn't it rank right up there with stating that a person wears a yellow short sleeve shirt instead purple tank top. Please don't tell me your politics have lowered to the point where you rely on such meaningless things.

Goodness, this post doesn't say much about your intelligence. To go on with this stupid rant right after I specifically informed you that I'm not judging Obama's patriotism by his choice to wear or not wear a patriotic pin makes you look like a moron.

Your FiL doesn't sound much like me at all, but I think it's extremely small of you to look down on him for the choices he makes about how he expresses his patriotism.

But to get back to what you say was your point, I didn't bring the flag pin issue up. The people who brought it up are HolmeZz and NewPhin.

memyselfI
04-18-2008, 08:07 AM
Obamessiah and his believers are going to have to suck it up and get over the fact that patriotism HAS been an issue in the past few elections (fair or not) and certainly will not cease to be when the CONS have such a juicy target like Baaarack Obama.

I suspect that the underlying fear (hence all the protestations) with his supporters is that if Kerry and Gore couldn't withstand the scrutiny then Obama will fold like cheap lawn chair. That is why they are trying to cry foul on the issue from the start.

Good luck with that. ROFL

http://www.newsweek.com/id/132566


The Democrats’ Wimp Factor

As Obama's patriotism is questioned, he's starting to look more and more like John Kerry in '04.
Apr 17, 2008 | Updated: 4:00 p.m. ET Apr 17, 2008

The specter of John Kerry in 2004 is beginning to haunt the Democrats in 2008. It is the specter of wimpy campaigns past. It showed up, like Banquo's ghost, at the debate Wednesday night in Philadelphia, particularly when Hillary Clinton joined with ABC's George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson to nip away at the edges of Barack Obama's patriotism. Between the questions about Obama's meager association with William Ayers, a former Weatherman, and the suspicions raised by his lack of a flag lapel pin, the likely nominee is slowly being turned into John Kerry. He is becoming, in other words, a candidate who may be mostly right about national security but who will lack the Red State street cred to carry his point—and the election.

Once again timorous Democratic advisers behind the scenes are hoping they can run mainly on the ailing economy. While their candidates are urging an end to George W. Bush's war in Iraq, they are terrified of questioning the larger premises of his "war on terror" or John McCain's redefinition of it as the "transcendent challenge of the 21st century." Today's Dems are, in other words, proving unequal to the task of reclaiming the party's mostly honorable heritage on national security. This view is sadly out of touch, today more than ever. To little notice, Obama's tough, clearly stated position on Bush's war—that it was disastrously misdirected toward Iraq when Afghanistan was always the real front—is becoming conventional wisdom, even among the Bush administration's top security officials, like Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. During two days of nearly impenetrable testimony on Iraq by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker last week, one answer rang out as clearly as an alarm bell. Under questioning from Joe Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Crocker admitted that Al Qaeda poses a greater threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan than it does in Iraq. No one knows more about this than the ambassador, an Arabic-speaking diplomat who previously served as envoy to Pakistan and whose career practically tells the story of America and the age of terror going back to the 1983 bombings of the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut.

Yet the region that poses America's number one threat is getting little in attention and resources compared to Iraq. What Obama is arguing on the stump is pretty close to what Gates and the Joint Chiefs have been quietly hearing from their military advisers: that the best the United States can do with its scant NATO force of 37,000 in Afghanistan is to hold off the resurgent Taliban and their Al Qaeda guests in a stalemate. Under current conditions Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the chief culprits of 9/11, will continue to have plenty of room to roam, unharried by any large-scale U.S. or Pakistani effort to go after them. This is even truer today; next door to Afghanistan, Pakistan is transitioning into a post-Musharraf era and seeking to negotiate more with the extremists. Obama called last year for two additional brigades to be sent to Afghanistan, and last week he was joined by Biden, who told an audience at Georgetown University that "the longer we stay in Iraq, the more we put off the day when we fully join the fight against the real Al Qaeda threat and finally defeat those who attacked America seven years ago." Biden added that Gen. Dan McNeil, commander of the international force in Afghanistan, told him during a visit in February "that with two extra combat brigades—about 10,000 soldiers—he could turn around the security situation in the south, where the Taliban is on move. But he can't get them because of Iraq." Even Hillary Clinton has been tacking, very quietly, in Obama's direction.

No one, in other words, has a better case to make on national security right now than Barack Obama. John McCain is still out there contending that Iraq is the central battlefront and quoting Osama bin Laden favorably to justify his argument (not to mention mixing up Shiites and Sunnis). Under normal conditions this position might saddle McCain with a real "vulnerability"—to use a term the Dems like to employ about themselves—but it doesn't seem to hurt him much now. The Democrats are too afraid of his all-American "story," as Hillary put it. John Kerry, a winner of the Silver Star in Vietnam, spent most of his 2004 campaign defending himself against vague suggestions of treason based on his antiwar testimony in 1971, when as a young officer returning from Vietnam he asked, penetratingly and relevantly for today, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Obama is being placed on the defensive on flimsy grounds as well, and there he's likely to stay, rendered permanently suspicious by association thanks to questions about Ayers and the "anti-American" statements of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. As Clinton said helpfully during the debate, "It goes to this larger set of concerns about how we are going to run against John McCain." She's right, but her fears are self-fulfilling. The more damage she does to Obama, the harder it will be for him to take the offensive against a bona fide patriot and war hero like McCain. Safer just to talk about the economy and health care.

Insecurity over national security has been eating at the Democrats ever since Vietnam destroyed the party's proud self-image, which was forged by FDR, Truman and JFK in World War II and the early years of cold war containment (both Democratic success stories). Obama, by most accounts, is confident of his ability to reclaim this grand tradition. "Of all people I've dealt with on foreign policy issues, this guy takes to it like a duck to water," one of his top advisers, Greg Craig, a former State Department policy planning chief, told me recently. But the party's peculiar pathology could yet drag Obama down. He's getting Kerryized. At a time when he should be taking on John McCain, he's being forced to talk about lapel pins.