Gwen Ifill's Crazy Blue 1980s Style Jacket Politics Thread!

by **pacino** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 17:55:49

well, he officially lost my vote.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9izhjnaLa3M[/youtube]

by **mpmcgraw** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 17:57:07

I don't know what McCain says happened but that article is a joke.

The sailors who died were doing jobs they were trained to do, jobs that McCain was not trained to do.

Also if bombs are going off on the deck of a ship and you refer to any room of that ship as safe, you are a moron.

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 18:01:08

mpmcgraw wrote:I don't know what McCain says happened but that article is a joke.

The sailors who died were doing jobs they were trained to do, jobs that McCain was not trained to do.

Also if bombs are going off on the deck of a ship and you refer to any room of that ship as safe, you are a moron.

No, you are a moron. McCain's fellow pilots fought alongside the other members of the crew, which you would know if you weren't a moron.

I guess reprinting McCain's own words is a joke. Do you have a problem with mcCain's version of events? I ask because it was largely McCain's version of events, along with the official inquiry, that was quoted.

Do you have anything to add other than calling people names and saying this or that is stupid? Really, do you have anything to add? If not, crawl back under you rock and stay there, please.

by **Mountainphan** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 18:03:37

phdave wrote:
Mountainphan wrote:And if I associated with terrorists, I would expect to be called out on it and asked to explain, especially if I was running for Pres.

See, this is the really frustrating part of this. He has been questioned about it and has explained what his relationship was. This has been discussed for months and months. Many articles have been written about it. He discussed it in debates. There were campaign ads about it. He even was grilled about it on O'Rilley. I don't know what else to add about it. It's not some new mysterious accusation that just came out of nowhere. It's been in McCain's back pocket to bring up again once things started looking bleak and now is the time. Things were looking bad back in August so he brought it up back then but things turned around after the Palin announcement. Now things are even worse so suddenly Ayers is a very important subject to talk about again.

This is one of those issues that I get a sense is just a bunch of campaign noise that supporters of a campaign throw around to hope that people who aren't really paying much attention start to have negative feelings about a rival candidate. Remember the nonsense concern about the fact that Kerry hadn't released his full military and medical records? People were screaming about it everywhere. It was all very disturbing that he wasn't telling us everything. Obviously by not releasing every bit of personal information he had something to hide. Well, he released his information after the campaign and there was nothing there. No one cared because by that time the election was over. I suspect that no one cared to begin with and it was just something to go on and on about on the TV to raise doubts about a candidate.

The difference here is that this process already happened during the primaries. The Ayers accusations have been around and have been dealt with. Show me something new and I'll deal with it. Show me something that doesn't add up about what has already been written or the answers that Obama has already given about this in one-on-one interviews with unsympathetic talk show hosts or in debates with a primary opponent who didn't leave any stone unturned in her effort to win the nomination.

I'm not convinced that anyone is really concerned about Obama's relationship with Ayers. This is a political smear. Palin brings up a NY Times article about it in a speech. So what that the same article she mentions concludes that there is really nothing to the relationship. She wasn't trying to debate a point, she is one of the many people trying to smear Obama.

Until then, I'm going to treat your effort to bring this up like it is a new, real and important issue (right on cue with the McCain campaign's self proclaimed shift in strategy away from the economy to Obama's character and judgement) as something worthy of mockery.

His explanation is basically that "he (Ayers) is a guy who lives in my neighborhood". Sorry, that ain't cutting it, because there's more than ample evidence to suggest that the relationship is much more extensive than that.

Now we have Obama's spokespersons saying that he didn't have any idea that Ayers was a Weatherman/terrorist when he got cozy with him in 1995. Considering this guy (Ayers) has never been shy to admit his past (at least since he came out of hiding), that's way hard to believe.

Character issues are and will be part of every Presidential campaign whether anyone likes it or not. The reason being that we ultimately vote on human beings and not some automaton who spits out policies on a variety of issues.

by **phdave** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 18:05:32

McCain needs to explain his ongoing friendship with a 70s radical and convicted felon.

by **mpmcgraw** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 18:08:30

So they went above and beyond their call of duty and should be respected and honored as such but those that didnt should not be looked down upon.

Who did I call a name? I called the writer a moron yes, and as is anyone else who thinks that being being on a lower level of an aircraft carrier is safe while 2,000 pound bombs are going off on deck. ONE bomb going off on a carrier is more than enough to sink her.

Just asking for a little common sense here Jackie boy.

I was pointing out an obvious logical fallacy in the writing which would have been welcomed had it been to McCain's detriment.

by **Woody** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 18:08:34

THEY WORKED TOGETHER ON EDUCATIONAL REFORM AND HELPING PEOPLE GET OUT OF POVERTY, IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE IT DIDN'T COME UP.

"Hi, I'm Barry, future President"
"Hi. Bill Ayers, I bombed a lot of shit in acts of domestic terrorism"

by **phdave** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 18:31:51

Mountainphan wrote:His explanation is basically that "he (Ayers) is a guy who lives in my neighborhood". Sorry, that ain't cutting it, because there's more than ample evidence to suggest that the relationship is much more extensive than that.

No, that's not at all what happened. I've just read an interview transcript and several articles about this and the extent of the Obama response cannot be boiled down to one comment about them being neighbors.

I don't know why your are choosing to misrepresent this and I don't know if you really care about this or are just intent on making noise for noise's sake but I'm not going to do the work for you and copy and paste text that you can find yourself just for you to come up with some other spin on things that fulfills whatever it is that you are getting out of this nonsense.

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 18:47:36

mpmcgraw wrote:Who did I call a name? I called the writer a moron yes, and as is anyone else who thinks that being being on a lower level of an aircraft carrier is safe while 2,000 pound bombs are going off on deck. ONE bomb going off on a carrier is more than enough to sink her.
.

Sorry about the moron thing. I misread your post and thought you said I was a moron for thinking it was true. My bad.

As for McCain's actions that day, I believe the Navy term is "all hands on deck." You don't hang out in the pilot's lounge during a dire emergency. I do disagree with the author's tone. I think the facts and McCain's own words are damning enough without adding little things to make it sound worse. For example, in the part I quoted, he said McCain "nervously" did his preflight checklist. I have no idea why the author thinks McCain did it "nervously." I expect he doesn't know, unless it's in the biography, and he added that word to make McCain look weak. It's unnecessary and doesn't do the article any good, even if it's just a reference to the fact that McCain had already crashed a few planes and may have been a little nervous. So I think the article is stupid in that way, but the fact remains that many of the most damning parts of the article are from McCain's own words and the words of people who knew him very well.

So, I guess I'm asking people to read the article and just pay attention to the facts while ignoring the author's spin. The facts are bad enough.

by **Camp Holdout** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 18:50:30

all talk on obama and ayers is officially retarded. i thought we all decided that a long time ago.

by **phdave** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 18:51:41

Camp Holdout wrote:all talk on obama and ayers is officially retarded. i thought we all decided that a long time ago.

Some of us are slow.

by **phdave** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 18:56:39

pacino wrote:well, he officially lost my vote.

So was that a religious test for office he was talking about?

by **VoxOrion** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 18:59:41

Camp Holdout wrote:all talk on obama and ayers is officially retarded. i thought we all decided that a long time ago.

The echo chamber is a harsh mistress.

by **Laexile** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 19:31:25

Monkeyboy wrote:
Mountainphan wrote:With McCain and Keating, McCain owned up to his lapse in judgement a long time ago. Some blame McCain-Feingold on McCain's "regret" over his connection to Keating (even though his connection was found to be overstated to a large degree). Also, the Keating Five affair was thoroughly covered by the press and only now is Obama's connection to Bill Ayers getting some serious scrutiny.

Except that McCain has recently said that he was innocent in the Keating Affair and that he didn't do anything wrong and it was all just a partisan witchhunt. Of course, he says this after years of saying the direct opposite, which is that he made mistakes and learned from them.

Also, the investigation into the Keating affair didn't cover McCain's wife's investment into a mall being built by Keating, so there is stuff out there that hasn't been investigated fully.

John McCain never said he was guilty of anything. He said that he used poor judgement. I used poor judgement when I was hit be a car crossing the street. Like John McCain I learned from that experience.

On NPR last night a Democratic investigator said that McCain did nothing wrong and should have been dropped from the investigation. Since the three senators who actually did something wrong were Democrats the committee wouldn't do it. He said that he was voting for Obama but he didn't like people misrepresenting his work. When McCain sat in on the meeting he told them, "Don't treat Keating any differently than anyone else."

It was a Democratic scandal. McCain was included for political cover. Maybe we can smear the Democrats with Iran Contra.

If we're bringing up McCain's actions in the fire 41 years ago, should we bring up Barack Obama's drug use? In his autobiography Obama talked about using marijuana and cocaine as a teenager. The left makes a big deal of George Bush's drug use. I guess we should do the same?

by **Trent Steele** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 19:41:37

Laexile wrote:The left makes a big deal of George Bush's drug use. I guess we should do the same?

Really? Is this just in your head or does anyone really care about George Bush's drug use?

by **Mountainphan** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 19:44:28

phdave wrote:
Mountainphan wrote:His explanation is basically that "he (Ayers) is a guy who lives in my neighborhood". Sorry, that ain't cutting it, because there's more than ample evidence to suggest that the relationship is much more extensive than that.

No, that's not at all what happened. I've just read an interview transcript and several articles about this and the extent of the Obama response cannot be boiled down to one comment about them being neighbors.

I don't know why your are choosing to misrepresent this and I don't know if you really care about this or are just intent on making noise for noise's sake but I'm not going to do the work for you and copy and paste text that you can find yourself just for you to come up with some other spin on things that fulfills whatever it is that you are getting out of this nonsense.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. When he was asked about his relationship with Ayers during a primary debate, that is basically the answer he gave. He could have settled it once and for all in front of a large national audience and that was his lame answer. In summary, he's downplaying his relationship, probably for good reason.

If there's more to it that you've read, please by all means share this "explanation" or cite a source or two rather than using the "find it yourself" joboggi excuse.

I do care about this, along with many other things, since it involves who's going to be sitting in the oval office for the next few years. Of course you're going to dismiss it since it doesn't fit your "narrative". No problem - I get that. Doesn't mean it's not worth looking at more closely.

by **phdave** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 20:10:38

Mountainphan wrote:I'm not misrepresenting anything. When he was asked about his relationship with Ayers during a primary debate, that is basically the answer he gave. He could have settled it once and for all in front of a large national audience and that was his lame answer. In summary, he's downplaying his relationship, probably for good reason.

If there's more to it that you've read, please by all means share this "explanation" or cite a source or two rather than using the "find it yourself" joboggi excuse.

So, are you saying that you are absolutely convinced that the one remark you are referencing in one debate is the only time he has ever answered any questions about this relationship and this is the only comment he made about it? I'll play this stupid game with you but with some rules up front.
I'll gladly post everything I can find about this to show you that you are misrepresenting the situation. However, first, I'd like to hear it from you that you think that this is the extent that anyone has gotten Obama on the record about his relationship with Ayers. Because that is what the above paragraph implies. If you are honestly under informed about this subject, then I have no problem pointing you to a source or two. However, if you know about him commenting about the Ayers situation more than what you wrote above yet you choose to characterize it the way you did, then this is just a stupid game of noisemaking and I don't feel like playing that. I suspect that you know he has said more than this but I could be wrong.

Mountainphan wrote:I do care about this, along with many other things, since it involves who's going to be sitting in the oval office for the next few years. Of course you're going to dismiss it since it doesn't fit your "narrative". No problem - I get that. Doesn't mean it's not worth looking at more closely.

The problem I have isn't if we should look at associations between candidates and shady people. The problem is that I think you are pretending that this is new territory that we are just now getting into and Obama has been hiding his association with Ayers and now we have to press him for more information.

Maybe I'm wrong. If you are not pretending fine. You just must be someone who is very politically involved yet hasn't come across any of the wealth of information that is out there on this subject. I'll be happy to enlighten you but not if you are intentionally misrepresenting things.

by **Camp Holdout** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 20:15:28

phdave... you are doing exactly what the mccain campaign was hoping for. there are some pretty big problems in the world, a debate in 47 minutes... and we're talking about... BS. you know it, i know it, deep down mountainphan knows it too, and you better believe the mccain campaign knows it.

but anyway, enjoy. it probably ranks as the 751,854th most important issue in this election.

by **drsmooth** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 20:25:44

Camp Holdout wrote:phdave... you are doing exactly what the mccain campaign was hoping for. there are some pretty big problems in the world, a debate in 47 minutes... and we're talking about... BS. you know it, i know it, deep down mountainphan knows it too, and you better believe the mccain campaign knows it.

but anyway, enjoy. it probably ranks as the 751,854th most important issue in this election.

this I know: the Bombers will not be in the World Serious 2008

tia

by **Camp Holdout** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 20:27:17

drsmooth wrote:
Camp Holdout wrote:phdave... you are doing exactly what the mccain campaign was hoping for. there are some pretty big problems in the world, a debate in 47 minutes... and we're talking about... BS. you know it, i know it, deep down mountainphan knows it too, and you better believe the mccain campaign knows it.

but anyway, enjoy. it probably ranks as the 751,854th most important issue in this election.

this I know: the Bombers will not be in the World Serious 2008

tia

that issue ranks 691,092nd. we can talk about that if you want.

Archived

Gwen Ifill's Crazy Blue 1980s Style Jacket Politics Thread!