Sarah Palin blamed by the US Secret Service for provoking death threats against Barack Obama

[Fandango 1,439]

She stated the truth...he does have dubious ties to terrorism....what people do from there is up to them.

This is what has grated on me this whole campaign...God forbid you STATE THE FACTS, you're labeled racist/inciting death threats/etc...for some reason O was completely insulated by the fallout from the actual truth and questions in his past...have no idea why, but it's astounding.

Saying things like 'She tried to get him killed' is actually quite ignorant as she has no control over what people do. Not to mention it's a very baseless and dangerous attack on her character.

Wait, so she has no control over what people do, but Obama has control over what Ayers did when Obama was 8? Wow. The only fact I'm seeing here is selective outrage.

It's as obvious as day it was a smear tactic to scare people into voting McCain. It's a signature Republican move in recent times.

A President launched his career in the home of a terrorist. This is true. Wiggle the bullshit any way you want, but the facts don't change.

In politics, aligning yourself with people of standards usually is the right thing to do...not forming "friendships" with terrorists, hate groups, and openly racists preachers.

There is a difference between controlling someone, and being selective about the caliber of people you surround yourself with...

It may be called a 'smear' tactic by the die hard democrats....because it usually would (imo) have caused great damage to the candidate's credibility, but in this instance it did not. However, that doesn't change the fact that there was nothing factually wrong with any of what was said.

This is beyond partisan bs imo because no matter who said what about whom...if it's TRUE it's TRUE. I would hope ANY opposing candidate knowing very concerning facts like these would abolutely bring them to light to the voting public, because most of the media certainly didn't, and this was most certainly 'need to know' info afaic.

[Niels Bohr 72]

She stated the truth...he does have dubious ties to terrorism....what people do from there is up to them.

This is what has grated on me this whole campaign...God forbid you STATE THE FACTS, you're labeled racist/inciting death threats/etc...for some reason O was completely insulated by the fallout from the actual truth and questions in his past...have no idea why, but it's astounding.

Saying things like 'She tried to get him killed' is actually quite ignorant as she has no control over what people do. Not to mention it's a very baseless and dangerous attack on her character.

Wait, so she has no control over what people do, but Obama has control over what Ayers did when Obama was 8? Wow. The only fact I'm seeing here is selective outrage.

It's as obvious as day it was a smear tactic to scare people into voting McCain. It's a signature Republican move in recent times.

A President launched his career in the home of a terrorist. This is true. Wiggle the bullshit any way you want, but the facts don't change.

In politics, aligning yourself with people of standards usually is the right thing to do...not forming "friendships" with terrorists, hate groups, and openly racists preachers.

There is a difference between controlling someone, and being selective about the caliber of people you surround yourself with...

It may be called a 'smear' tactic by the die hard democrats....because it usually would (imo) have caused great damage to the candidate's credibility, but in this instance it did not. However, that doesn't change the fact that there was nothing factually wrong with any of what was said.

This is beyond partisan bs imo because no matter who said what about whom...if it's TRUE it's TRUE. I would hope ANY opposing candidate knowing very concerning facts like these would abolutely bring them to light to the voting public, because most of the media certainly didn't, and this was most certainly 'need to know' info afaic.

My god, then I voted for the wrong candidate. We're all going to be sorry when the economy is fixed. This will be the end of the US as we know it. That is fact!

[Ling Ling 22]

Sarah has a bit of a problem defining a terrorist....

Edited November 9, 2008 by Ling Ling

[IAMX 3,055]

A President launched his career in the home of a terrorist. This is true. Wiggle the bullshit any way you want, but the facts don't change.

In politics, aligning yourself with people of standards usually is the right thing to do...not forming "friendships" with terrorists, hate groups, and openly racists preachers.

There is a difference between controlling someone, and being selective about the caliber of people you surround yourself with...

It may be called a 'smear' tactic by the die hard democrats....because it usually would (imo) have caused great damage to the candidate's credibility, but in this instance it did not. However, that doesn't change the fact that there was nothing factually wrong with any of what was said.

This is beyond partisan bs imo because no matter who said what about whom...if it's TRUE it's TRUE. I would hope ANY opposing candidate knowing very concerning facts like these would abolutely bring them to light to the voting public, because most of the media certainly didn't, and this was most certainly 'need to know' info afaic.

Oh my god..

If you'd actually harp on relevant issues, you'd see Obama has political interests with money and corporations over American citizens. This is relevant, and this actually has something to do with the Presidency.

Last I checked Bill Ayers wasn't bombing #### around the time he met Obama, or any time after. Do these facts cross your mind? No. So the real facts here are you can't find useful ####### to harp on about so you spoon feed from conservative nutjob op-eds (October surprise?) to validate your choice.

And if aligning yourself was something to do in regards to people with standards, ask yourself why George Bush is aligned with the Bin Ladens. One could dig up anything and everything on Bush and McCain. However, I have to give credit to Democrats for actually staying away from that ####### on McCain, while Republicans and their sycophants simply could NOT actually talk about any legitimate issues this country is facing.

This scare horse sh!t worked for Bush last election. It's simply obvious you can't keep scaring people into voting for you.

Edited November 9, 2008 by SRVT

[Niels Bohr 72]

SRVT, LING LING...I changed my mind, looks like the world is going to end. Palin just announced that Obama has launced an all out secretive attack against the US by planning an all black takeover of the USA!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Virtual Wife -

You find something fascinating and a bit troubling for our future, but you choose not to care beyond that?

The troubling part is that dissenters to Obama and defenders of Palin are ostrasized. The not caring part is that a few personalities contradict themselves regularly.

Do inform me what there is to defend about Palin? I'd love to hear it.

Is it her awesome knowledge of how things work? Her geographical knowledge? Her foreign policy expertise?

The only thing that's glaringly obvious is she's a talking head with a pretty face. If that in itself is worth the defense, besides merely having a #######, then you likely need to re-assess your own values in a candidate.

SRVT -

Not only do I think that is an extremely classless way of stating your opinion, I think it has just validated what VW is stating as her complaint.

VW -

I would allow that some persons will always jump to defend when they are 'cause driven'. I would also allow that there are others who don't mind a substantive debate.

Personally, I find most of your commentaries to fall into some other sort of oblique category, although I've yet to figure out exactly what it is you are attempting to accomplish. You claim to be an academic, yet your debating tactic is to go first for the inflammatory, with facts (if any are produced) to follow later.

I don't get you. I don't get what you hope to accomplish by openly belittling not only the opinions but the intelligence of those who have tried (without success) to get you to engage in debate. I don't get why you are always right and your opinions can never be changed. That just flies in the face of everything education, conversation and debate is about.

I'm not the only one posting politically who's dismissed summarily by those who claim to know best. Kaydee, GaryC, peejay and others are also. I've even seen charles taunted for posting nothing, and I know he catches ####### for defending me. I tend to post more than any of them, so I get more of the bile. The thing I find hard to understand is that the belittling and name-calling goes both ways, yet the crowd has decided that if it weren't for me, there would be nothing but peace and light on the OT. I've read threads where so much backbiting is going on and I'm not posting there, so I know that's not true.

As for my lack of debating tactics, there is no debating going on here, so why expect me to do it alone? I do what is tried and tested, what's being directed at me. On this thread, my request for information turns into a diversion from the topic to credentials, who has them and who doesn't, how posts are perceived and who is popular and who is not.

What is wrong with believing you are right and demanding proof before changing your opinion? Is it considered peevish to have an opinion that is not designed to allow you to fit in with views that have no substantive support? This thread, for example, serves only as a platform for those who hate Palin to vent their disapproval. The election is over, Obama won, yet there is still a viseral need for some to pick over her bones. I come to the discussion with a critical eye, preferring not to take an article such as been posted and give it immediate credibility, as so many have. Having been taught that you must not only consider the source, but discern it's agenda, its interests, research, objectivity or lack or, its perspectives, what the purpose of the presentation is. Then, and only then, are we to assign legitimacy to it. I don't see that happening here. It's accept or be damned.

Over these last two years, I have observed the media's overt adoration for all things Obama, and I'm appalled at the lack of professionalism journalists have exhibited in presenting this election from one pov rather than a myriad of them. It's been negative McCain/Palin and positive Obama/Biden; just look at pop magazine covers and articles. They've been so loving towards the Obamas and so smearing of the Palins. It has't been a level playing field for a long time, and the public eats it up. It's a concern to our democracy that this unbalance is so acceptable. The inability to articulate the love is also a concern, and to see members of the media now admitting that they purposefully set up this straw dog to get "their man" elected is raises serious ethical problems.

If it would be possible to debate, we would debate, but we don't. When not tearing into Palin or admiring Obama in ways that apparently can't be articulated, we break almost immedicately into ad hominems and blow back to the point where the topic is lost, as it is now.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Lastly, it may possibly be true that technically neither Senator McCain nor Governor Palin could ever be convicted of threatening Senator Obama, a presidential candidate. But this metaphor is true. Senator McCain and Governor Palin have walked right up to the line of what is legal and illegal and have spit across it."

Great metaphor.

[panamania79 2]

The Republican vice presidential candidate attracted criticism for accusing Mr Obama of "palling around with terrorists", citing his association with the sixties radical William Ayers.

The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric.

But it has now emerged that her demagogic tone may have unintentionally encouraged white supremacists to go even further.

The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks.

Michelle Obama, the future First Lady, was so upset that she turned to her friend and campaign adviser Valerie Jarrett and said: "Why would they try to make people hate us?"

The revelations, contained in a Newsweek history of the campaign, are likely to further damage Mrs Palin's credentials as a future presidential candidate. She is already a frontrunner, with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, to take on Mr Obama in four years time.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...rack-Obama.html

Not only is she a friggin' idiot,she's evil also !

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I don't think she had intentions of causing his life to be in further danger by her remarks, but it is sad that it caused that.

I don't believe in reading others minds, but I do believe in extrapolating intent from actual actions. And her actions are clear and their impact couldn't be clearer - even to Sarah. I do believe she tried to get him killed.

She stated the truth...he does have dubious ties to terrorism....what people do from there is up to them.

This is what has grated on me this whole campaign...God forbid you STATE THE FACTS, you're labeled racist/inciting death threats/etc...for some reason O was completely insulated by the fallout from the actual truth and questions in his past...have no idea why, but it's astounding.

Saying things like 'She tried to get him killed' is actually quite ignorant as she has no control over what people do. Not to mention it's a very baseless and dangerous attack on her character.

Word!

[Niels Bohr 72]

Palin also stated the truth that Africa is a country. I believe her as well. And, also she stated the truth when announced Alaska and Russia are in proximity due to their plane routes. Therefore, she is very good with foreign relations.

Edited November 9, 2008 by Niels Bohr

[Sofiyya 1,687]

She stated the truth...he does have dubious ties to terrorism....what people do from there is up to them.

This is what has grated on me this whole campaign...God forbid you STATE THE FACTS, you're labeled racist/inciting death threats/etc...for some reason O was completely insulated by the fallout from the actual truth and questions in his past...have no idea why, but it's astounding.

Saying things like 'She tried to get him killed' is actually quite ignorant as she has no control over what people do. Not to mention it's a very baseless and dangerous attack on her character.

Wait, so she has no control over what people do, but Obama has control over what Ayers did when Obama was 8? Wow. The only fact I'm seeing here is selective outrage.

It's as obvious as day it was a smear tactic to scare people into voting McCain. It's a signature Republican move in recent times.

A President launched his career in the home of a terrorist. This is true. Wiggle the bullshit any way you want, but the facts don't change.

In politics, aligning yourself with people of standards usually is the right thing to do...not forming "friendships" with terrorists, hate groups, and openly racists preachers.

There is a difference between controlling someone, and being selective about the caliber of people you surround yourself with...

It may be called a 'smear' tactic by the die hard democrats....because it usually would (imo) have caused great damage to the candidate's credibility, but in this instance it did not. However, that doesn't change the fact that there was nothing factually wrong with any of what was said.

This is beyond partisan bs imo because no matter who said what about whom...if it's TRUE it's TRUE. I would hope ANY opposing candidate knowing very concerning facts like these would abolutely bring them to light to the voting public, because most of the media certainly didn't, and this was most certainly 'need to know' info afaic.

Word, again!

[IAMX 3,055]

Virtual Wife -

You find something fascinating and a bit troubling for our future, but you choose not to care beyond that?

The troubling part is that dissenters to Obama and defenders of Palin are ostrasized. The not caring part is that a few personalities contradict themselves regularly.

Do inform me what there is to defend about Palin? I'd love to hear it.

Is it her awesome knowledge of how things work? Her geographical knowledge? Her foreign policy expertise?

The only thing that's glaringly obvious is she's a talking head with a pretty face. If that in itself is worth the defense, besides merely having a #######, then you likely need to re-assess your own values in a candidate.

SRVT -

Not only do I think that is an extremely classless way of stating your opinion, I think it has just validated what VW is stating as her complaint.

VW -

I would allow that some persons will always jump to defend when they are 'cause driven'. I would also allow that there are others who don't mind a substantive debate.

Personally, I find most of your commentaries to fall into some other sort of oblique category, although I've yet to figure out exactly what it is you are attempting to accomplish. You claim to be an academic, yet your debating tactic is to go first for the inflammatory, with facts (if any are produced) to follow later.

I don't get you. I don't get what you hope to accomplish by openly belittling not only the opinions but the intelligence of those who have tried (without success) to get you to engage in debate. I don't get why you are always right and your opinions can never be changed. That just flies in the face of everything education, conversation and debate is about.

I'm not the only one posting politically who's dismissed summarily by those who claim to know best. Kaydee, GaryC, peejay and others are also. I've even seen charles taunted for posting nothing, and I know he catches ####### for defending me. I tend to post more than any of them, so I get more of the bile. The thing I find hard to understand is that the belittling and name-calling goes both ways, yet the crowd has decided that if it weren't for me, there would be nothing but peace and light on the OT. I've read threads where so much backbiting is going on and I'm not posting there, so I know that's not true.

As for my lack of debating tactics, there is no debating going on here, so why expect me to do it alone? I do what is tried and tested, what's being directed at me. On this thread, my request for information turns into a diversion from the topic to credentials, who has them and who doesn't, how posts are perceived and who is popular and who is not.

What is wrong with believing you are right and demanding proof before changing your opinion? Is it considered peevish to have an opinion that is not designed to allow you to fit in with views that have no substantive support? This thread, for example, serves only as a platform for those who hate Palin to vent their disapproval. The election is over, Obama won, yet there is still a viseral need for some to pick over her bones. I come to the discussion with a critical eye, preferring not to take an article such as been posted and give it immediate credibility, as so many have. Having been taught that you must not only consider the source, but discern it's agenda, its interests, research, objectivity or lack or, its perspectives, what the purpose of the presentation is. Then, and only then, are we to assign legitimacy to it. I don't see that happening here. It's accept or be damned.

Over these last two years, I have observed the media's overt adoration for all things Obama, and I'm appalled at the lack of professionalism journalists have exhibited in presenting this election from one pov rather than a myriad of them. It's been negative McCain/Palin and positive Obama/Biden; just look at pop magazine covers and articles. They've been so loving towards the Obamas and so smearing of the Palins. It has't been a level playing field for a long time, and the public eats it up. It's a concern to our democracy that this unbalance is so acceptable. The inability to articulate the love is also a concern, and to see members of the media now admitting that they purposefully set up this straw dog to get "their man" elected is raises serious ethical problems.

If it would be possible to debate, we would debate, but we don't. When not tearing into Palin or admiring Obama in ways that apparently can't be articulated, we break almost immedicately into ad hominems and blow back to the point where the topic is lost, as it is now.

You might be able to gather rebecca's sympathy by playing this card (and maybe she'll fall for it), but I'll address the two bolded parts like any other post:

1. charles really only steps away from defending similar ilk when it goes way over TOS. He's a cool guy, but he certainly marches with the same people as well.

2. The second bold is funniest of all. I guess the media and magazines made you plaster all the McCain / Palin shite all over your avatar and signature, right? Strangely, logic nor proof led you astray on your tear regarding Obama and ACORN, or Obama's nationality. If you're going to try and bullshit someone, VW, try bullshitting someone who doesn't actually read your posts. I've seen enough of your drivel, then post-drivel-whining spree, to have figured it out by now.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Word! Palin told the truth! Rejoice! Looks like Africa is truly a country. We've been fooled.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Palin also stated the truth that Africa is a country. I believe her as well. And, also she stated the truth when announced Alaska and Russia are in proximity due to their plane routes. Therefore, she is very good with foreign relations.

You know little or nothing about Palin, what she sis or said, or how intelligent or knowledgable she actually is because the media has underserved and decived you to get Obama elected. It's easy to make one side look bad and create animosity toward them if you have an electorate that is fed up with the status quo and unwilling to be critical about the information it is receiving because they are content to hear it is all good with the new guy.

Didn't your professors in the Ivy League teach you to discern sources and not take things at face value? Mine did, and I honor their good direction by doing just that.

[IAMX 3,055]

Didn't your professors in the Ivy League teach you to discern sources and not take things at face value? Mine did, and I honor their good direction by doing just that.

Face value? Like assuming that people rabidly trying to make money off ACORN's registration drive (McCain also had a for profit registration drive) meant that Mickey Mouse was fraudulently voting for Obama?

Yeah, you never actually were able to show how that was happening. Didn't stop you from asserting it dozens of times. Pretty sure we can cut the "I'm objective" ####### as no one here is falling for it but you.