US President elections 2008.

Shadow of a Doubt:

The other thing I have to say about that video is that you only hear what the McCain people are saying. You don't hear what the protesters are saying. It could be bigotry too.

Such as?

Shadow of a Doubt:

Also, the protesters were provoking them. I'd be pissed too. But I'd keep my mouth shut.

I thought we had this thing called freedom of speech... And the protesters could probably "provoke" without saying a single word - although the people in that video didn't seem to need much provoking "Go back to Kenya." - Oh so eloquent...

Shadow of a Doubt:

I'm not sure what I ment. I guess because they were calling him a socialist. He is on the brink of that (I think).

How so?

Shadow of a Doubt:

Also, the protesters were provoking them. I'd be pissed too. But I'd keep my mouth shut. As far as I know, when Obama and Bill Clinton came there were no protesters. (There probably were though.)

Oh, well then excuse me, it's totally acceptable to be racist assholes when you're being provoked.

Shadow of a Doubt:

I'm not sure what I ment. I guess because they were calling him a socialist. He is on the brink of that (I think).

Yes, but if you look at what Socialist ideology actually is, and then look what what Barack Obama proposes, then you will see that the two concepts are totally different.

If John McCain seriously thinks that Obama is anywhere close to Socialism, then I would question his basic knowledge of political ideology, but mostly I think calling Obama Socialist is just another way to smear him. I would argue that America as a country would never elect a Socialist figure, because American political culture is fairly incompatible with that idea.

McCain never said he was Socialist. I did!

Shadow of a Doubt:

McCain never said he was Socialist. I did!

McCain said something along the lines of 'Obama wants to 'spread the wealth around''
Which sounds, to me, like he was implying Socialism.

And if you, not McCain, said Obama is Socialist, then how do you justify that?

Shadow of a Doubt:

McCain never said he was Socialist. I did!

And I asked you "how so?"

Shadow of a Doubt:

McCain never said he was Socialist. I did!

As did many other people after Palin said it.

And she is rather notorious for making rash and extremely exagerrated statements.

I would also like to know how his economic plan is similar to socialism. And to add on a note, question Mccain and Palin's hard edged wall on that idealism, as they were all arms for the 700 billion dollar bailout, which, in it's proposal, is probably the most socialist proposal to be set in motion in our economy.

Weasil:

And she is rather notorious for making rash and extremely exagerrated statements.

For the things that come out of Palin's mouth to be exaggerations, they would have to be based on some level of fact first. 90% of the time it's not.

Did anybody else read the thing on yahoo that reported what Palin told a 3rd grader what the VP did?

Who Stole My Pants?:

Did anybody else read the thing on yahoo that reported what Palin told a 3rd grader what the VP did?

Yes, it was a work of art. I posted the article in the previous page I think.

Kurtni:

Weasil:

And she is rather notorious for making rash and extremely exagerrated statements.

For the things that come out of Palin's mouth to be exaggerations, they would have to be based on some level of fact first. 90% of the time it's not.

I think the bigger shocker of percentages would be to find the amount of things that she states that are based on some sort of fact that is remotely related to what's important. At the least.

Did anyone watch Obama's commercial/informercial/idk what to call it?

tbh I don't think he brought up anything we didn't already know, but whatever. He can definitely afford to spend $6 million on that sort of thing, anyway. xD

Shadow of a Doubt:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78945

The first thing that discredits the article is the fact that it's on a Conservative website,which deems it biased with no antithesis nor balance in sources.

The second thing;

(I highlighted the overlooked words for you.)

"Following the initial reports of Obama's purported membership in the New Party, Obama associate and former Chicago New Party activist Carl Davidson posted a statement on several blogs claiming his former party was not socialist..."[The New Party] was a pragmatic party of 'small d democracy' mainly promoting economic reforms like the living wage and testing the fusion tactic, common in many countries but only operational in New York in the U.S. The main trend within it was ACORN, an Alinskyist outfit, which is hardly Marxist," wrote Davidson.

"But the socialist goalsof the New Party were enumerated on its old website."

The fact that they admitted that they were percieved "goals", not an actual statement, is a claim, which is an entirely different statement as there are no hard facts. That's not a real point, that's a biased outlook. Without the solid truth, it's a ghost of a heated accusation.


also,

Stanley Kurtz is a notorious right-wing conspiracy theorist, who's claims are known to be without truthful base and utterly ridiculous.

Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party. In all six primary campaigns of his career, Barack has has run as a Democrat. The New Party did support Barack once in 1996, but he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.

This isn’t the first time Kurtz has gone out of his way like this. He has a history of telling these kinds of unsubstantiated tall tales. Kurtz is on the record with the sexist and intolerant claim that the national nursing shortage is the “fault of feminism.� The Chicago Tribune had something to say about that.

"WGN-AM 720 host Milt Rosenberg erred Wednesday night when he had partisan attack dog Stanley Kurtz as his only guest for a two-hour show….Rosenberg, who is himself quite the partisan, tut-tutted right along with Kurtz. It all disguised that Kurtz really had nothing new to add to the insinuations and innuendo in the guilt-by-association portion of the campaign against Obama in which he’s actively engaged.�

And here's my non biased facts to support this:


‘96 OBAMA CAMPAIGN MANAGER: BARACK DID NOT SEEK NEW PARTY ENDORSEMENT
Carol Harwell: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.� Carol Harwell was Obama’s campaign manager for his 1996 bid for state senator. According to Ms. Harwell the Obama campaign did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement. [Conversation with Ms. Harwell on 6/11/08]




OBAMA IS A DEMOCRAT AND HAS RUN AS A DEMOCRAT IN ALL SIX PRIMARY CAMPAIGNS


Obama Is A Democrat and Has Run in All of His Campaigns as a Democrat. On March 19, 1996, Obama won the Democratic primary for the 13th district. On March 17, 1998, Obama won the Democratic primary for the 13th district. On March 21, 2000, Obama lost the Democratic primary for Congress, representing the first district of Illinois. On March 19, 2002, Obama won the Democratic primary for the 13th district. On March 16, 2004, Obama was the Democratic primary for US Senate. In 2008, Obama won the Democratic primary for President of the United States. [Illinois State Board of Elections; Chicago Weekend, 3/24/1996; Illinois State Board of Elections; Illinois State Board of Elections; Illinois State Board of Elections; Illinois State Board of Elections]

THE NEW PARTY “BACKED� OBAMA ONCE
New Party Said That They “Backed…Candidates;� Only “Backed� Obama In 1996. “Since it’s founding in 1992, the New Party chapters have backed 200 candidates, and 133 have won their races. Roughly half of our candidates are women; more than a third are people of color.� According to a cache of their website, the New Party only “backed� Obama in 1996; “Illinois: Danny Davis (U.S. House of Representatives, 1996, 1998 ), Miguel Del Valle (Illinois State Senate, 1998 ), Willie Delgado (Illinois State Legislature, 1998 ), Barack Obama (State Legislature, 1996), Michael Chandler (Chicago City Council, 1995), Patricia Martin (Cook County Judge, 1996).� [New Party Archive, 2003]

KURTZ IS “PARTISAN ATTACK DOG� WHO IS “ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE “GUILT BY ASSOCIATION CAMPAIGN AGAINST OBAMA�
Chicago Tribune Called Stanley Kurtz A “Partisan Attack Dog� Who Is “Actively Engaged� In The “Guilt-By-Association Campaign Against Obama.� On August 31, 2008, the Chicago Tribune reported, �WGN-AM 720 host Milt Rosenberg erred Wednesday night when he had partisan attack dog Stanley Kurtz as his only guest for a two-hour show…. Rosenberg, who is himself quite the partisan, tut-tutted right along with Kurtz. It all disguised that Kurtz really had nothing new to add to the insinuations and innuendo in the guilt-by-association portion of the campaign against Obama in which he’s actively engaged.� [Chicago Tribune, 8/31/08]

Stanley Kurtz Is Tied To Bill Kristol’s Conservative Think Tank. Kurtz is a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. The Policy Advisory Board includes: William Kristol. [Bio, policy advisory board, EPPC website, accessed 8/27/08]
Stanley Kurtz Was A Research Fellow At The Hoover Institution. In 2004, Stanley Kurtz was a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. [Boston Globe, 3/10/04]



KURTZ HAS A HISTORY OF MAKING BIZARRE, UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS


Stanley Kurtz Claimed That Same Sex Marriage In Denmark Led To A Decline In Marriage Resulting In 60 Percent Of Children Being Born Out Of Wedlock. Stanley Kurtz stated: “Data from European demographers and statistical bureaus show that a majority of children in Sweden and Norway are now born out of wedlock, as are 60 percent of first-born children in Denmark. In socially liberal districts of Norway, where the idea of same-sex registered partnerships is widely accepted, marriage itself has almost entirely disappeared. [Boston Globe, 3/10/04]


Analysis Of Statistics On Marriage In Scandinavia Was Debunked. “Kurtz’s argument, which O’Reilly embraces, is that when legal rights are accorded to gays, through some unspecified process heterosexual couples begin bearing children out of wedlock and refuse to marry when they otherwise would. There are many government policies that alter the incentives to get and stay married, and thus have direct and unsurprising effects on marriage; for instance, the availability of no-fault divorce leads to more divorces, and laws providing the same rights for cohabitating heterosexual couples as married couples lead to fewer marriages, as couples make private commitments to each other without seeking the imprimatur of the state. But neither Kurtz nor O’Reilly has provided a plausible justification for their belief that extending rights to gay couples harms heterosexual marriage.� [Media Matters For America, 6/3/05]

Kurtz Claimed That The National Nursing Shortage Was The “Fault Of Feminism.� In 2002, the Los Angeles Times reported, “Back at National Review Online, contributing editor Stanley Kurtz makes the same point! He, too, says women shouldn’t be trying to play by men’s rules. Of course he has a slightly different take. According to Kurtz, the national nurse shortage is the fault of feminism, for bringing about “the replacement of a traditional ethic of sacrifice by a post-‘60s ethos of self-fulfillment.� Kurtz stated at the time “Nursing was once built around a spirit of feminine compassion and sacrifice. In the new, feminist world, that is unacceptable.� [Los Angeles Times, 7/21/02]

Stanley Kurtz Stated That The Harvard Faculty No Confidence Vote In Lawrence Summers Would Cause “Lasting Damage To The Cultural Left.� On March 19, 2005, Stanley Kurtz stated on the National Review Online website, “I think the vote of no confidence in Lawrence Summers is a wonderful thing. Harvard continues to discredit itself with the American public. The faculty is trapped. If Summers resigns, this extraordinary example of political correctness will come back to haunt Harvard, and the entire academy, for years. But if Summers hangs on, the faculty itself will have been humiliated–checked by the very fact of public scrutiny. Either way, Harvard is tearing itself apart. So long as the public simply writes of the academy, the mice can play. But the intense public scrutiny in this case puts the captains of political correctness into a no-win situation. Like the closely watched Susan Estrich fiasco, this battle is doing lasting damage to the cultural left. As they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant.� [National Review Online, 3/19/05]

Kurtz Argued That the Clash Between Middle East Family Life, Including the Islamic Sexual System, and Modernity Is Central to Understanding Terrorism. “But it is the clash between traditional Middle Eastern family life and modernity that has decisively pushed so many toward fundamentalism. And women are at the center of the problem. Although the puzzle of ‘modernity and the Muslim woman’ is one of several keys to this war, the feminist sensibility of the American press has rendered the connection between terrorism and the Islamic sexual system all but invisible.� [National Review, 2/28/02]

Kurtz Argued “Muslim Kinship Structure Is an Unexamined Key to the War on Terror.� “In this first in a series of essays on Muslim cousin-marriage, I want to begin to make the case that Muslim kinship structure is an unexamined key to the war on terror. While the character of Islam itself is unquestionably one of the critical forces driving our global conflict, the nature of Islamic kinship and social structure is at least as important a factor — although this latter cluster of issues has received relatively little attention in public debate. Understanding the role of Middle Eastern kinship and social structure in driving the war not only throws light on the weaknesses of arguments like D’Souza’s, it may also help us devise a new long-term strategy for victory in the war on terror.� [National Review, 2/15/07]

Kurtz Wrote that The Left Controls Key Levers and that Winning in Politics Is the Only Route for Conservatives to Exert Balancing Influence to Stop America from Becoming Like Europe. “Precisely because the left controls key levers of the culture, politics is the only real route to balance. America is not that far from sliding into the culture and politics of Europe, and so conservatives simply can’t afford a sweeping political loss right now.� [Kurtz Post, National Review Blog, 2/6/08]


Kurtz Wrote During the 2004 Election That There Was A Culture of Fear About Displaying Pro-Bush Signs and that Bush Supporters Put American Flags Up Instead. “There is a climate of fear. Again and again, Corner readers say they’ve been scared off of posting bumper stickers by visions of having their cars keyed or their windows smashed… Are the fears justified? They seem to be… Many Bush supporters avoid the whole problem by adopting a flag strategy. American flags, yellow ribbons, and signs saying “Support our troops� function in many places as proxies for Bush-Cheney signs. One reader noted that none of the homes with Kerry signs on his street display American flags. Other readers say they intentionally use the flag as a proxy.� [National Review, 10/7/08]

Well, I'm done agruing with you guys. Obama is going to win, so I don't see the point in this anymore Also, I have watched that video, I posted, like 10 times. The more I watch it the more I can't believe that people are say such things, whether I think it is racist or not. I'm sick of seeing American so divided.

I don't believe in America being divided. George Washington even stated at the birth of the two parties, a warning that such an idea would divide the country. Lincoln reinstated it with a quote from Shakespeare; "A house divided cannot stand." And in a large case, they're right.
At a time where nearly every aspect of what we used to believe in, cultural and economical, is on it's turning point, I believe that we should be relying on one another, including other countries. It's not about being a world superpower anymore, neither enforcing ourselves as the world's police. We're at an age that we can communicate to the other side of the world so easily, and the different state of country relations, that the way that many view American ideals are outdated and nearly obtrusive in the way of advancing ourselves. I don't think that McCain is evil. Palin scares the shit out of me, but that's something completely different. It's not that McCain would be the worst thing for the country, but there's so much resentment towards the Republican party, even amongst fellow Conservatives, that a change might be beneficial to both sides. It's a trend that when parties exchange power, there's an economical surge, and like the Democratic party in the eighties, it might be best for them to sit back and try to work out what needs to be reinvented for this new era. The Cold War was still ending at the beggining of the ninties, when the first Bush was in power. So much has changed since then, and the problem is that the Republican party has limited itself to being nearly exclusive to the Conservatives of the country, which only number up to so much. The Democratic party isn't being sung praises, but I think that certain ideals do need legal shifting, such as foreign policies (I could care less the way that Bush speaks, some people just aren't perfect at public speaking. The fact is that over the past eight years, he's repeated his father in going rouge and ignoring much advice and blocking out important factors in running the country, including the citizens of his own country, members of his own party, and just as equally important, foreign nations, including Europe. We need to reestablish connections, as well as the rest of the world. "Mortal enemies" is something that children say when someone makes fun of them, not world leaders about other nations that we don't agree with. Do we want another Cold War?)
But I'm going to stop there, because that's not what it's about.
It's not about fighting. It's not even about personal likes or vendettas on whether you could have a beer with the candidate or not. It's about the future generations of this world, and us. And when I say us, I don't just mean the US, I mean the world, "mortal enemy" countries and all.

And the beautiful thing is, you can vote for whomever you like! It's the wonder of a democracy. I only aim to express my ideals in the truest way possible, and I only go for things when dissected and analyzed properly. I just believe that as long as every descision is intentional for the good of all things living, it's a decision made right.

there is one girl out of 28 people in my class who says she'd rather have McCain win the election.
We were all like "..why?" and she said "Because OBAMA IS A MUSLIM!"
So we were all like ".. k, get your info right, he was accused of being muslim, but made it clear he isn't. " so she's like "I just think that they'll regret electing him some time soon - I think he's going to be someone that he doesn't show himself to be right now."
Then later, she said the only reason she said that, was because she thought it was boring that we all stuck with Obama

ocean avenue:

there is one girl out of 28 people in my class who says she'd rather have McCain win the election.
We were all like "..why?" and she said "Because OBAMA IS A MUSLIM!"
So we were all like ".. k, get your info right, he was accused of being muslim, but made it clear he isn't. " so she's like "I just think that they'll regret electing him some time soon - I think he's going to be someone that he doesn't show himself to be right now."
Then later, she said the only reason she said that, was because she thought it was boring that we all stuck with Obama

I'm doing my final canvassing tommorow!! After that it's all phone calls and helping people to the voting booths.
I'm just really excited to see the turnout, I'll be biking all Tuesday around the beach til 11 pm.

ocean avenue:

there is one girl out of 28 people in my class who says she'd rather have McCain win the election.
We were all like "..why?" and she said "Because OBAMA IS A MUSLIM!"
So we were all like ".. k, get your info right, he was accused of being muslim, but made it clear he isn't. " so she's like "I just think that they'll regret electing him some time soon - I think he's going to be someone that he doesn't show himself to be right now."
Then later, she said the only reason she said that, was because she thought it was boring that we all stuck with Obama

well she could turn out to be right.

At the end of the day he's not messiah and although i believe him to be the better man giving the options, who knows what will happen. power is dangerous and can change any man.