wow - At their rally yesterday - when McCain asks who the real Obama is, supporter yells "Terrorist" then when Palin speaks, supporter yells "kill him" - neither did or said anything about it. McCain winked and smiled.


http://www.americablog.com/2008/10/kill-him.html

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 11:13 AM. Reason : ]

10/7/2008 11:13:37 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnSXGTFQ0Ak

ooooooowwwwwwwwnnnnnnneeeeeeeeeeeddddddddddddd

10/7/2008 11:14:19 AM

^^

Quote :

""Now it turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers," Palin said. "Boooo!" said the crowd. "And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,'" she continued. "Boooo!" the crowd repeated. "Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience. Palin went on to say that "Obama held one of the first meetings of his political career in Bill Ayers's living room, and they've worked together on various projects in Chicago.""

Nothing she said was a lie. There is no evidence she even heard the man say "kill him" and neither Palin or McCain have called him a terrorist

Democrats want to cry slander and call McCain's camp disgraceful but shit like this is just as bad

10/7/2008 11:19:34 AM

There's no evidence they didn't hear it either.

10/7/2008 11:32:30 AM

^ See!?!?!?! GUILTY AS CHARGED!!!!



I swear, progressives are in a race to see how many times they can call McCain "disgraceful", "disgusting", etc. It kinda reminds me of Republicans circa 1999. "That Bill Clinton is EVIL! He had Vince Foster KILLED! He's a SOCIOPATH!!"

When did my party become over-run with radicals?

10/7/2008 11:38:43 AM

\/ more examples


[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 11:46 AM. Reason : ``]

10/7/2008 11:46:19 AM

Democrats aren't your party. your party is the fellatio of John McCain party.

10/7/2008 11:53:13 AM

^^You're party supported McCain until a few days ago?

10/7/2008 11:55:01 AM

^ Progressives started taking over the party almost 2 years ago. It wasn't an overnight development.

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 11:57 AM. Reason : ``]

10/7/2008 11:57:11 AM

after the election, McCain will make his apology and everyone will just buy it up because no one wants to believe that John McCain is a less than honorable individual.

10/7/2008 12:07:01 PM

Quote :

"Nothing she said was a lie. "

No, but she is not mentioning the latter 30 years of his life in which he has done good work and has been an upstanding citizen (the only time when Obama new him), which is called a lie of omission which she is using to mislead people. Further, the whole notion is a guilt by association fallacy. Theres no evidence that Ayers past radicalism has affected Obama.

How many times does this shit need to be repeated...

10/7/2008 12:12:51 PM

Yeah. Progressivism has just now taken over the Democratic Party. Like in the past 2 years. Totally.

10/7/2008 12:13:43 PM

agent, I think you have seen the democratic party shift left that is why they lost the south. imo

The voting question was just another question to you. Just asking how you feel about it.

10/7/2008 12:22:46 PM

Quote :

"I think you have seen the democratic party shift left that is why they lost the south. imo"

They lost the South when they backed the Civil Rights Movement

10/7/2008 12:30:05 PM

10/7/2008 12:39:11 PM

Quote :

"Worse, Palin's routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness. In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her "less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media." At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy." "

- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR2008100602935.html

Way to stay classy Palin/McCain

10/7/2008 12:52:43 PM

they are appealing to the worst of America. I hope they get blown out in November, bunch of pricks that they are.

10/7/2008 12:54:08 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/07/obama-hatred-on-display-a_n_132572.html

Quote :

"Shortly afterward, a male member of the crowd in Jacksonville, Florida, yelled "treason!" loudly enough to be picked up by television microphones."

Staying real classy.

10/7/2008 12:58:02 PM

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-aviator6-2008oct06,0,1670799.story

Here's an interesting article in LA Times. They are reporting that McCain was an incompetent pilot. This actually corroborates a story a TWWer (I can't remember who... I almost want to say it was theDuke but I'm not sure) told a while back that was in the military, and spoke to a general or someone that knew McCain.

10/7/2008 1:00:41 PM

^ I hope the Dems pick this up, kinda like what the Repubs did by down playing Kerry's military service. After bitching for 8 years about the political tactics of George Bush, the Dems have adopted almost all of them themselves. This would make a good addition to the growing list.

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 1:09 PM. Reason : Not My Party.]

10/7/2008 1:09:09 PM

Eh, McCain's incompetence as a pilot is not really news. The dude destroyed more American planes than enemy planes during his military career. I don't really think it's relevant though, and has no bearing on his ability to be president.

It's an example of something the GOP would be harping on incessantly if the candidates were switched though. I don't believe it's ever been mentioned in a single Obama ad.

10/7/2008 1:09:27 PM

Quote :

"The dude destroyed more American planes than enemy planes during his military career."

To be fair, he flew a lot of bombing missions, didn't he? You don't destroy enemy planes with bombs.

10/7/2008 1:13:58 PM

Sure you do! Parked ones

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/papres/

Quote :

"# PA-Pres Oct 7 SurveyUSA Obama (D) 55%, McCain (R) 40% "

McCain to pull out of PA soon? This is a knockout poll imo, and shows that McCain's last hope for turning a blue state is pretty much lost.

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 1:19 PM. Reason : :]

10/7/2008 1:16:52 PM

I almost feel betrayed by McCain. I was ready to vote for him in 2000- until he lost to Bush. When it was clear who the 2 major candidates were going to be this election, I was pretty excited. I thought it would be a rare chance to choose the BETTER of two candidates than to have to hope the worst was not to win.

Oh, and the new campaign tactics aren't just disgusting, they're not working:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111004/Gallup-Daily-9Point-Obama-Lead-Ties-Campaign-High.aspx

10/7/2008 1:18:22 PM

Quote :

"They lost the South when they backed the Civil Rights Movement"

So, even though MORE republicans voted for the civil rights act than dems. THe racist southerners then ran away from the party who opposed it more and embraced the party that supported it? Kinda goes against your theory boss.

The original House version:[9]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[9]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

10/7/2008 1:18:48 PM

Quote :

"I almost feel betrayed by McCain. I was ready to vote for him in 2000- until he lost to Bush. When it was clear who the 2 major candidates were going to be this election, I was pretty excited. I thought it would be a rare chance to choose the BETTER of two candidates than to have to hope the worst was not to win"

Chary,

Which of McCain's policy positions makes you feel betrayed??

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 1:24 PM. Reason : ``]

10/7/2008 1:24:19 PM

^^Look at the sectional divide next time.

^Socks`` save me the tears about Obama running a dirty campaign and McCain not. Does the name Corsi ring a bell?

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 1:26 PM. Reason : .]

10/7/2008 1:25:45 PM

10/7/2008 1:28:28 PM

nope. Try again.

10/7/2008 1:29:47 PM

Ralph Stanley for Barack Obama

10/7/2008 1:33:25 PM

^ another hollywood elite endorses the golden child.

10/7/2008 1:35:54 PM

WELL I'LL BE

IF IT AIN'T THE SOGGY BOTTOM BOYS

10/7/2008 1:37:12 PM

Quote :

"Chary, Which of McCain's policy positions makes you feel betrayed??"

The word "almost" that I had used in my statement- leaving it out changes the tone and meaning quite a bit. You may have missed my meaning if you're interpreting it that way. I don't feel betrayed in a definite sense- but it's a vaguely similar sensation. It's somewhere between actual betrayal and the sensation you get upon trying crystal pepsi.

Since you wanted a more pointed explanation of why McCain is somewhere between Benedict Arnold and Crystal Pepsi (probably more towards to soft drink than the soft-spined end of the spectrum):

His broken promise to run a clean campaign ("straight talk")
His reversal on warrantless wiretapping
His reversal on indefinite detention
His reversal on abortion rights
His reversal on corn-derived ethanol
His reversal on bailouts for banks
His reversal on mandatory emission caps
His reversal on whether or not Telecoms had to explain the extent of their involvement in warrantless wiretapping before being offered immunity.
His reversal on whether or not to allow lobbyists to work for his campaign.
First saying that he didn't want anything to do with Kissinger because he'd taint the "straight-talk" express- now he's the honorary co-chair of the campaign.

Whether or not anyone is flip flopping is not the issue here. That's complete crap. My problem is that I agreed strongly with his original stances on these issues (or respected them for the character they seemed to demonstrate) and am quite saddened to see him reverse course.

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 1:53 PM. Reason : ]

10/7/2008 1:53:25 PM

I can't run down the entire list, but as someone particularly concerned with environmental issues I can tell you that McCain has not reversed his position on subsidizing corn-derived ethanol (he still and always has opposed subsidization of ethanol) nor has he reversed his position on mandatory GHG emissions caps (McCain's Climate Stewardship Act was actually the first bill to call for such caps, has been introduced twice into the Senate, and was co-sponsored by Barack Obama).

I can't disagree with you that McCain's candidacy has had some disappointments, but I would like to urge you to take a second look at McCain. I think he is still worth voting for (if you were not already considering it).

10/7/2008 1:59:53 PM

I opposed the war in Iraq when it was the unpopular thing to do, I did not vote for the Iraq War. I didn't vote against it either but who needs those technicalities getting in the way.

10/7/2008 2:00:46 PM

^^ He's said in several interviews that he didn't want the caps to be mandatory... He often balked at the idea of calling them mandatory. Perhaps this was because he didn't wish to seem anti-industry and scare off his base. I suppose that deserves to be called a weakening of will rather than a reversal. He had originally stated, when talking about the bill you mentioned, that he would REQUIRE GHG reduction. Now he seems to desperately avoid any suggestion that he would support mandatory caps. Upon looking closer, I don't see how what he's proposing isn't mandatory, so yes it might just be a shift in rhetoric.

As far as ethanol, I'm not talking about subsidies. I'm talking about considering corn-based ethanol to be a viable alternative fuel on a large scale. He used to oppose the idea of using corn based ethanol for fuel because of how it would effect food prices and because of the incredibile inefficiency involved. Granted, his reversal to support the use of ethanol was earlier than I thought (2003), it was still an annoying shift.

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 2:18 PM. Reason : ]

10/7/2008 2:16:06 PM

^ as far as I know he only made such a reversal in a single speech and never trotted it out sense. So I think he actually just mispoke as opposed to actually supporting ethanol as an alternative. But in terms of policy, the only matter of concern would be whether McCain would support subsidizing ethanol, not whether he has an individual would choose to fuel his own car with it.

And in some of the debates, McCain did say that he doesn't support mandatory caps. But like you said I've read this as more of a rhetorical shift than a policy shift. As the Climate Stewardship Act makes clear, McCain supports capping total GHG emissions. However, this is not the same as mandatory caps for individual fims, which is the way some air quality regulations operate. An individual firm can pollute more if it purchases more emissions permits. However, total emissions for all firms must drop.

So, by supporting a cap-AND-TRADE system, McCain doesn't support "mandatory caps" for individual firms. I think that's really the message he wants to get across. That his proposal includes a trading element.

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 2:43 PM. Reason : ``]

10/7/2008 2:40:24 PM

to paraphrase socks response:

Quote :

"I think he actually just mispoke"

Quote :

"I've read this as more of a rhetorical shift than a policy shift."

10/7/2008 2:43:59 PM

McCain's team is now admitting that if they can't change the subject from the economy, then they are going to lose the election.

10/7/2008 2:52:35 PM

they could easily win (well, as easy as a presidential election can be) if they focus the economic blame on subprime mortgages supported by Obama and ACORN...but good luck getting all the news outlets to harp on those things

10/7/2008 3:01:54 PM

yes, it is ACORN's fault. I wonder how many of the people crying about ACORN actually has an idea of what it does as an organization.

10/7/2008 3:10:56 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93LPR783&show_article=1

10/7/2008 3:29:58 PM

Quote :

"eyedrbSo, even though MORE republicans voted for the civil rights act than dems. THe racist southerners then ran away from the party who opposed it more and embraced the party that supported it? Kinda goes against your theory boss."

Did you not see this list right below the wikipedia article you cited?.

Quote :

"The original House version: Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%) Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%) Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%) Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%) The Senate version: Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor) Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas) Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure) Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)"

Nice going, hack.

10/7/2008 3:42:15 PM

hack? are you fucking serious?

So you are telling me that the ENTIRE south started going republican bc ONE, 1, UNO, democratic senator voted for the civil rights act, and ONE, 1, UNO republican senator voted against it?

Nice thesis professor.

Yes, I saw it and thought it ONLY backed my arguement further.

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 3:55 PM. Reason : .]

10/7/2008 3:54:03 PM

Quote :

"Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure"

haha big surprise this racist fuck opposed it

10/7/2008 3:56:05 PM

no, you were suggesting, as others like burro have, that it was in fact the Republicans that pushed the Civil Rights Act through, when in fact it was not one party for and one party against. It was North = For, and South = Against. And even inside the North and South, Democrats still supported it in higher numbers than Republicans.

Once again - The South went Republican when the GOP successfully convinced people to vote against their financial self-interest and vote instead of "values" or moral issues. It's pretty simple, and that's not really a controversial view. Older Conservatives will admit the same thing

10/7/2008 3:58:29 PM

You were implying that the Republican majority had anything to do with the South.

The numbers prove otherwise.

10/7/2008 4:01:47 PM

Quote :

"Once again - The South went Republican when the GOP successfully convinced people to vote against their financial self-interest and vote instead of "values" or moral issues. It's pretty simple, and that's not really a controversial view. Older Conservatives will admit the same thing"

Thomas Frank is so 2004.

10/7/2008 4:19:51 PM

so you're denying that Southern whites changed from Democrat to Republican in the 60's and 70's because of race issues and moral/value issues?

what do you suggest, then?

10/7/2008 4:38:21 PM

FOX/Rasmussen - Oct 7
Pennsylvania
-----
Obama 54%
McCain 41%

10/7/2008 5:54:44 PM