Off the wall. All of us supported these things. Wow. Substantiate that.

Other than the movie, and General Betrayus(because I don't get into this name calling business), I can see why those viewpoints are out there.

As for the last comment, come on. Isn't this what most want about the people they disagree with? I don't understand the liberal constraint on this. That just seems hilariously partisan, without reason.

Normally I'd say I believe it Weds. morning. This time I'm waiting 'til mid January before buying and party supplies.

[quote=Herk;2544535]Off the wall. All of us supported these things. Wow. Substantiate that.[QUOTE]

read through this thread: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...ed-panned.html Overwhelming support, so i think the "all of you" was fair. I find the lack of reaction to these posts by Jinn and Stompy just as telling:


"Are you extremely excited to see a film about George Bush getting assassinated?"
JInn: I don't know about him, but I certainly am.

Stompy: I'll watch it... hoping... that one day dreams come true.

I'm not sure I'm understanding this "liberal contraint" you speak of.

gee, matthew, so you think there's no difference between the statements of particular individuals in no consistent contexts and those made in the context of political rallies that feature speeches which explicitly invoke and channel violent emotions?

i don't understand how that's possible, unless your point is nothing more than "yeah well you do it too so what we do is no different" and to thereby effectively argue that there's nothing particular or strange about the actions of the mc-cain/palin campaign in playing to petit-bourgeois rage.

so what's your point, exactly?

I made my point, and I can't help you out any more in understanding it. I think it's a fairly simple one, and I've resigned myself to not say the same thing 50 different times and 50 different ways because someone claims they "don't get it".

that's nice matthew.
so i'll conclude that your inability to clarify your logic means that your point is not interesting.

we agree to disagree, yes?

I am going to make a totally unfair attack against Obama. Those who are sensitive to such attacks should stop reading this post.

So, Obama said that he thought Ayers was "rehabilitated" and it got me to thinking. Gee, what if after Obama gets elected, and of course stops the illegal wire taps, and he get a text message from Osama Bin Ladin. I would imagine it to go like this:

From Bin Ladin: ?4U (question for you)
From Obama: W@ (what?)
Bin Ladin: Ben Rhabd! ( I have been rehabilitated)
Obama: KEWL! (cool)
Bin Ladin: MIRL (lets meet in real life)
Obama: 2Mor (tomorrow)
Bin Ladin: No DD (no due diligence)
Obama: DF (don't even go there with me)
Bin Ladin: lOl (laugh out loud)

I apologize to all, but I had to do it.

Everyone who did not read this, it is now safe to carry on.:thumbsup:

ace...i'm all for a good attack on a politician...

but man, what are you smoking :)

as for the ayers thing..i mean, if he was such a terrorist..would he be teaching at a university now?

"as for the ayers thing..i mean, if he was such a terrorist..would he be teaching at a university now?"

Please tell me you're joking.

oh..i forgot

elitist intellectual=unreformed terrorist.

Doesn't Bin Laden teach at Berkley?

I heard that University of Illinois was considering hiring Timothy McVeigh, but things didn't work out. They the got Bill Ayers instead.

Doesn't the whole "was on the board of an institution funded by Republicans" saying something about the notion that he's at least somewhat rehabilitated? Not to mention that the Weather Underground intentionally acted in ways to avoid killing people? Not that I think there's anything to the notion of the Obama - Ayers connection, given that they haven't really had anything to do with each other for the past ten years. McCain is far more closely connected with Keating, to pick a random example. I'm just saying that even if the connection were somewhat closer, it wouldn't really make a difference to me.

asaris, why interject logic and facts into a good smear?

and bin laden teaches at UC-Davis, not berkeley...

Besides, on a scale of "waving while jogging" and "flying away on a family vacation together" ...don't you think mccain is closer to keating than ayers is with obama

At least it's not like Sarah Palin is married to someone who wants Alaska to secede from the union. And it's not like she has a history of giving her husband complete access to whatever resources she has at her disposal as an elected official. Nope. There's no problem there.

You know, Reagan was a staunch supporter of a notorious terrorist enabler named Oliver North.

A McCain top adviser named William E. Timmons was a paid lobbyist for Saddam Hussein.

You want to talk associations, that's a bull's eye, right there.

Another totally unfair attack on Obama, again if you are sensitive to such attacks, have a pace maker, or graduated from Chicago public schools - you have been warned.

I am kinda like McCain these days - I am going to use even another approach to attack Obama. this one in the form of a series of true/false questions, that you the reader of this can answer as you read.

Chicago Public Schools have been ranked among the worst in the nation - True or False?
Obama/Ayers worked on the board of an organization to improve Chicago Public Schools - True or False?
Obama/Ayers raised millions of dollars to help improve Chicago Public Schools - True or False
Obama's major accomplishment prior to running for office in Illinois was being a community organizer, to help the people get ahead- True or False?
As a State representative Obama had opportunity to pass legislation to improve Chicago Public Schools - True or false?
As a US Senator Obama had opportunity to pass legislation to improve Chicago Public Schools - True or False?
Obama is against pay for performance for teachers - True or False?
Obama is against school choice or vouchers - True or False?
Obama helped improve Chicago Public Schools - True or False?
Obama sends his children to Chicago Public Schools? - True or False?
Obama believes that poor should have the same opportunities as the "rich" - True or False?
Obama is a hypocrite - True or False?

You decide!

Again I apologize for another totally unfair, non-fact based, non-issue related attack, but it is over now, feel free to carry on.:thumbsup:

Not interested in what Obama did regarding education?
Not interested in what Obama accomplished as a community organizer? Elected official?

I get it. I should have never attacked Obama. My apologies.

Why is your post in yellow?

Because he is a moderator

i don't use mod-mode very often, but when i do, it's in yellow.
like this is:

this is not a debating point ace.
there's a series of pissy non-posts above yours as well.
so this isn't really about you.

do something else with the thread or i'll close it.

Nevermind

When its all said and done, it will be interesting to hear McCain's reflection on this campaign.

I dont think he will look back fondly on how he sold himself out when he turned the campaign over to the Rove surrogates and the social conservative base of the party.

I thinks it clear the Palin wasnt his selection but he was convinced that he needed to shore up the conservative base. If he had his way, Lieberman would have been his running mate. They may have lost some of the base (but where else could they go?) but been much more competitive with the swing voters.

And its clear that the focusing of the campaign on "character" not "issues" was the strategy of the Rove disciples in positions of influence in his campaign.

His failure was to surround himself with these characters based on their past reputation that they could win by holding the base and sliming the opponent.

And when he fails, he has no one to blame but himself.

I wonder who runs the show. It's not McCain. He was probably forced to accept certain things as a condition for campaign support, which suggests that he was weak to begin with. The campaign has proven that he is an ineffectual leader.

Come to think of it, none of the Republican presidents were really powerful. Ronnie was out of it a couple months into his first term. Papa Bush did not have the popularity to be very powerful and depended on the Atwaters of the world to get him through. Bush II has never seemed to be fully in control of figures like Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Rove.

I am interested in taking a deeper look into the Ayers/Obama connection. I think this deeper look is related to Obama and his work locally on education and carries forward to his work as an elected official on education. It appears no one is interested in a deeper look other than to complain about McCain's strategy. I think Obama made no impact on the school system in Chicago as a community organizer, state representative, or in the senate. I also think it is hypocritical for Obama to talk about "fairness" pretending to be an advocate for the middle class and the poor, while he sends his children to private school (to the tune of about $20,000/year in tuition).

In my experience, I have grown accustom to what to expect, so I have a little fun with it. If I were inclined I could predict and write the responses that will follow.

here's the thing
the two campaigns seem to be: "i'm for change" from obama and "Yea, me too..but look what obama did" from mccain.

i just think people are far more concerned with the current issues.

mc-cain is in a very tight space for manoeuvre---the weight of 8 years of cowboy george is obviously huge, and i don't see anyone who is not a dyed-in-the-wool ultra-conservative buying the premise that the campaign chose to build from, that mc-cain represents an alternative to the bush people. i can kinda see how it might appeal to that demographic, however---but going in that direction for the campaign meant that it really was abandoning the moderates, abandoning independents i think, simply because of the viewpoint you have to occupy to see this alternative thing as substantive.

so the campaign chose to go at the populist right base. that's the centre of the campaign, and that's what it will live or die by.

this business of lobbing these shit-bombs at obama and desperately hoping something will stick appeals to the other potential demographic--people who are inclined to vote against obama--and the reasons for that are various, some of them ugly no doubt. but these are not the same people--those for whom palin is a viable candidate, those who are inclined to vote against obama. thing is that the mc-cain camp seems to be working on the assumption that there's little substantive in this inclination to vote against obama, and so seem to want only to create more spaces that this vague disaffection can find out there to give itself shape.

i don't think there's anything interesting to talk about with the linkage that the mc-cain people have more or less made up between obama and bill ayers. and even if there was such a link, i would have no problem with it. but the fact is that there no there there.

if mc-cain's campaign thinks it can split obama's demographic with this kind of approach, they have to do something different with it. redbaiting appeals only to conservatives. this smear approach appeals to conservatives.

i'm sure that if they had something substantial to play with, they'd have already done it: so i assume they've got nothing.

but if they've got nothing substantive, then the tactic seems an exercise in futility.
and it ain't working.

One final question from me concerning this election, and I will no longer take shots at Obama.

Do you folks think Obama is winning the election or is it that McCain is losing it?

Or I guess it is two questions - Are you happy with the answer to the question above?

I think it's both. Obama has had a good ground game from the beginning. I think his ground game caught Hilary off guard and her camp underestimated him from the beginning. McCain hasn't really fared much better.

On the other hand McCain seems to be on about his 50th tact now. There have been days where McCain has contradicted his own comments. Not comments from a week or month ago, comments form earlier that day. Last week his camp seemed to have reached critical mass. It's hard to imagine there's anywhere for him to go but up. The question now is time. Is there enough time for him to go up enough. Personally I don't think so but it is possible I guess, esp. if Obama suffers some self inflected wound.

I think Obama is genuinely winning.

obama has been clearly winning it since he started his campaign. He fought a great battle against the clintons and focused on how to win, sticking and moving, focusing on areas that counted for him..then gets the nomination and has played the same style. He has an amazing team that focuses very very well in key areas.

on top of that, he doesn't have 8 yrs of hugging bush under his belt..

I've known what Obama said about Ayers for a long time, but I'm glad he finally resolved it on national TV. I wonder what the McCain ads will take now, instead of attacking him on the Ayers front. Maybe more 'tax and spend' democrats commercials? Or "Congressional liberals" who want to raise taxes?

Can't speak to the rest, but:

Obama says frequently that he's NOT among those he'd lower taxes on. I saw him say that the upper income people, "People like my opponent and me", would pay more tax. He's not hiding anything about his income--not the way McCain is by refusing to release Cindy's returns.

What's hypocritical is McCain pretending he gives a rip about the common man when he's looking down from the third floor window of house #8. Barack and Michelle were on food stamps when they first got married. John and Cindy were eating caviar off her daddy's teat. Who's the hypocrite?

I think if Obama was white and had a more standard name he would be ahead by a landslide because of the horrible economic news which is being perceived as a Washington/Republican problem and voters want change. His race and unusual name are keeping his lead within striking distance.