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

[Fandango 1,439]

Has polite gone out of fashion?

One-sided politeness indeed has. Not really into playing the games VW does when it comes to politics.

Regardless of what Ayers was doing at the time he met Obama....his history didn't change. That and other ties that Obama had may not be relevant to you or obviously a majority of the people, but it was most certainly important to me. And again, these are facts that no one can dispute...the only thing that can be disputed is whether or not it's 'relevant' and I can certainly say for me and many others that it absolutely was. It is damning, and perhaps that's why supporters are so upset by them being brought to light, but it is what it is. And it has nothing to do with Bush's associations.

I'm not an Obama supporter, yet I am unfortunately affected by people's inability to move beyond such a retarded issue as this. I am not afforded the rightful debate during the Presidency because people decide that because of what Ayers did, and paid for, well before he ever met Obama, that Obama is somehow responsible for Ayers past? If he was a dangerous guy he wouldn't later end up being a professor at a state university around a bunch of students. Only to someone either politically uneducated or politically contrived would still be harping on this.

But ask yourself, if McCain had a link to terrorists and religious organizations with openly racists religious leaders....would you dismiss it so easily? I think not. You don't have to be honest with me, but at least be honest with yourself.

If these past associations had nothing at all to do with his current Presidency, of course not. Why? Because EVERY politician, just like every single person, has friends or someone they know, or an associate, or a business partner, who either cuts corners or has done something criminal in their lifetime.

As for 'talking about the issues'...I find it ironic that you claim that the Repubs didn't, because I saw O's campaign as nothing but hot air and platitudes and empty of any real meat to the 'issues' we are facing today. I also find that the Dems also ran a campaign of fear, although in a slightly veiled way....'Change! cos otherwise we're in the crapper!'...can you really say that is not based in fear? Btw...Not all 'change' is good, and while it's a great slogan, there's no substance IMO behind it other than a great speech by a charismatic man. Tony Robbins is also a great speaker and a charismatic man, but that alone does not qualify him to be President, either.

His campaign was rather positive. I doubt anyone can run a campaign based entirely on negativity -- look at the McCain camp as no further proof of this. Firstly, his plans were to un-do Bush's tax cuts which should have been undone years ago. This is logical. McCain wanted to further Bush's tax cuts. Really ###### stupid. Secondly, Obama's foreign policy is clearly not so much about pre-emptive striking or proving something to the world as it is talkign to people like peers. Obama got plenty of flak for going to Syria, but this represents an open hand, rather than a pointed gun.

It's very clear other countries are more willing to work with Obama, and more people are willing to vote for someone who wants to remain on legitimate issues, rather than obsessing over everyone in a candidate's life.

So at the end of the day, for the sake of our country, I hope I am wrong about O cos I think he's very Carter-esque in his policies, Kennedy-esque in his wide-eyed ignorance, among other things. But to bring this back on topic, what was said by Palin was true and you cannot dispute that. Whether some nutcase hears the TRUTH and chooses to break the law and morality by deciding to kill someone, well the onus for that is on that individual.

It's very clear Palin couldn't really speak much of said legitimate issues because 1) she embarrassed herself on them, as it was evident she knows economics like she knows foreign policy, geography, and pretty much everything else, 2) because stupid people keep falling for it. If Republicans aren't demanding more of her, why bother? It was working. There's the "FACTS" for you.

It isn't Obama's responsibility to answer to nutcase conspiracy theorists and politically motivated attacks with nothing to do with any of the issues facing the country.

I don't have the time to keep repeating myself, but the response to your post above can be found in what I've already said in this thread.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The question here is not 'how dare they use this info?' but rather 'how could most easily dismiss this sort of info?'

That is the lingering conundrum.

[Peikko 1,575]

Explain how it is not innocuous. Saying that it isn't when the factual evidence point to the fact that it is, are simply not enough.

What is the "evidence" that points to it being innocous?

The fact that there is absolutely no suggestion anywhere that he has engaged in any terrorist activity - nor even supports any terrorist activity since the 60's. His gun ceased smoking 30 years ago. All you have to go on is some gut feeling that he is 'dubious'. That doesn't get you diddly squat.

[IAMX 3,055]

Which will lead nowhere, as McCain's camp's attack on ACORN was a smear and a show. What was most interesting is your connecting ACORN to Obama. Now there's a good fraud.

Obama is connected to ACORN, that's not in dispute.

The ACORN associate he paid had nothing to do with the Presidential race. That's why he had his own voter registration drive. You might want to go back and check all of your flimsy "sources" that you posted about ACORN. One included Barack Obama's website that involved the primary race.

I don't have the time to keep repeating myself, but the response to your post above can be found in what I've already said in this thread.

Well then, so long..

Edited November 9, 2008 by SRVT

[Big Papa Zone 93]

You lot do tend to take things far too seriously. Let's just agree that we'd all blow our load over Sarah Palin's baps given half a chance, and leave it at that, eh?

[panamania79 2]

You lot do tend to take things far too seriously. Let's just agree that we'd all blow our load over Sarah Palin's baps given half a chance, and leave it at that, eh?

[IAMX 3,055]

You lot do tend to take things far too seriously. Let's just agree that we'd all blow our load over Sarah Palin's baps given half a chance, and leave it at that, eh?

Yeah, that was pretty random. All that's left now is for charles and go to derail the thread and we're about done.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Explain how it is not innocuous. Saying that it isn't when the factual evidence point to the fact that it is, are simply not enough.

What is the "evidence" that points to it being innocous?

The fact that there is absolutely no suggestion anywhere that he has engaged in any terrorist activity - nor even supports any terrorist activity since the 60's. His gun ceased smoking 30 years ago. All you have to go on is some gut feeling that he is 'dubious'. That doesn't get you diddly squat.

I'm not sure who the "he" is you're referring to, but Bill Ayers did engage in terrorism, and still supports it. Obama didn't appear to be repulsed by that, considering that his association with Ayers was ongoing and direct.

I am resigned to the reality that many hear only want to believe the postive about BO and are more than willing to disregard anything that may point them away from that. Eventually, the character issue will become unavoidable when he is unable to be all things to all people, and not deliver on his promises.

You lot do tend to take things far too seriously. Let's just agree that we'd all blow our load over Sarah Palin's baps given half a chance, and leave it at that, eh?

Yeah, that was pretty random. All that's left now is for charles and go to derail the thread and we're about done.

This thread was derailed long ago.

[jom 4]

Some people just don't know how to stop. Very pathetic!

Get a life dude!

[Peikko 1,575]

Bill Ayers engaged (past tense) in terrorism in the 60's. He is now a college professor. Where is your evidence that he supports terrorism now? What terrorism does he support?

Keep pushing your 'Obama supporter' agenda on me too while you are at it. Nothing like promoting your own point of view based on misinformation.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Bill Ayers engaged (past tense) in terrorism in the 60's. He is now a college professor. Where is your evidence that he supports terrorism now? What terrorism does he support?

The very fact that you don't know the answers testifies volumes to how you have been ill-served by the media.

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, here we go more "I know, but I will not tell you what I know because by doing so I can point out how ill informed you are and make myself out to look smart"

Bullshit Ms VW. Utter #######. You know nothing, that is patently obvious. Hey, but carry on pretending you know something and you keep it all to yourself until the 'time is right' for the Lone Voice of Reason to crow. Honestly, this is just too pathetic.

[Big Papa Zone 93]

You lot do tend to take things far too seriously. Let's just agree that we'd all blow our load over Sarah Palin's baps given half a chance, and leave it at that, eh?

Yeah, that was pretty random. All that's left now is for charles and go to derail the thread and we're about done.

Random is funneh

Some people just don't know how to stop. Very pathetic!

Get a life dude!

To whom do you refer?

[panamania79 2]

Oh, here we go more "I know, but I will not tell you what I know because by doing so I can point out how ill informed you are and make myself out to look smart"

Bullshit Ms VW. Utter #######. You know nothing, that is patently obvious. Hey, but carry on pretending you know something and you keep it all to yourself until the 'time is right' for the Lone Voice of Reason to crow. Honestly, this is just too pathetic.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Oh, here we go more "I know, but I will not tell you what I know because by doing so I can point out how ill informed you are and make myself out to look smart"

Bullshit Ms VW. Utter #######. You know nothing, that is patently obvious. Hey, but carry on pretending you know something and you keep it all to yourself until the 'time is right' for the Lone Voice of Reason to crow. Honestly, this is just too pathetic.

I understand why you don't know; you couldn't vote, so this is just an interesting interlude for you. But, for those who could vote, there was no excuse.

I grew up during the 1960's and remember the Weather Underground, other domestic terrorist groups and their acts vividly. I do know more than you do because I was around and paying attention. What's pathetic is that others choose to forget or not to know.

I will consider posting more about Ayers, but the fact is, I already have posted plenty, but it seems you missed it. I can't think of a single time that it helped, was appreciated or didn't serve as merely an opportunity to generate more personal attacks. Post evidence, don't post evidence. Either way, it doesn't matter; the die is cast.

Edited November 9, 2008 by Virtual wife