2008 General Election Discussion Thread

[whitesoxfan101]

I have to find the link, but many of the clips int he video were lifter from a movie and they did NOT ask permission to use the, The movie maker is suing for copyright violation and requesting they pull the ad.

 

By the way, McCain promised to denounce outside groups who ran negative ads. His response to the ad: well... it's got some good points!

 

McCain should have just completely ignored the ad, and let people decide what they think of the ad and what is the truth. And if you are right about the clips in the video, than that is just stupid work by the people who made it. I was assuming the Obama people were upset over what was in the video, where they'd have no point in court to argue it, so my bad.

Edited August 27, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[bmags]

McCain should have just completely ignored the ad, and let people decide what they think of the ad and what is the truth. And if you are right about the clips in the video, than that is just stupid work by the people who made it. I was assuming the Obama people were upset over what was in the video, where they'd have no point in court to argue it, so my bad.

 

No I was going to post what AHB posted, besides fox who "accidentally" broadcasted it, there is legal questions on that commercial, one is the use of footage and another I believe is something about its donors. I think it's going to the FEC.

 

Stupid ad though. I don't think we can compare 60s terrorism of radical youth groups during the Vietnam war to todays radical Islamic terror. I mean, Obama ran against Bobby Rush in 2000, does that mean he's against the radical groups like the black panthers? Not really, it just doesn't matter. Ayers is now a key person in effective ways of reaching inner city schools. He's helping America. He's said those comments were distorted. That committee was to again, help kids in inner city schools. How terrorist, how rogue, how stupid.

[whitesoxfan101]

No I was going to post what AHB posted, besides fox who "accidentally" broadcasted it, there is legal questions on that commercial, one is the use of footage and another I believe is something about its donors. I think it's going to the FEC.

 

Stupid ad though. I don't think we can compare 60s terrorism of radical youth groups during the Vietnam war to todays radical Islamic terror. I mean, Obama ran against Bobby Rush in 2000, does that mean he's against the radical groups like the black panthers? Not really, it just doesn't matter. Ayers is now a key person in effective ways of reaching inner city schools. He's helping America. He's said those comments were distorted. That committee was to again, help kids in inner city schools. How terrorist, how rogue, how stupid.

 

Just as the ad went over the top making Ayers look bad, this post goes over the top making him look good. If you want MY personal opinion on the ad, I think it's something you have to think about. I understand Ayers trangressions were a long time ago, but they were still transgressions of great significance and he hasn't come all out saying "I f***ed up, I shouldn't have done this, I regret it", which bothers me. It wouldn't stop me at all from voting for Obama if I were one of his supporters, but I think this ad and relationship will hurt him. No question about it.

Edited August 27, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[bmags]

I think there are a lot of people contributing a lot to America that don't regret their rebellious in the face of some of the ridiculous activities of our government in the late 60s and early to mid seventies. They were bad american terrorists, they killed themselves, they didn't kill anyone else, they were self-righteous punks by all accounts. But years later he's a respected professor whose done wonderful things to help impoverished kids in an awful school system.

[whitesoxfan101]

I think there are a lot of people contributing a lot to America that don't regret their rebellious in the face of some of the ridiculous activities of our government in the late 60s and early to mid seventies. They were bad american terrorists, they killed themselves, they didn't kill anyone else, they were self-righteous punks by all accounts. But years later he's a respected professor whose done wonderful things to help impoverished kids in an awful school system.

 

The Weathermen killed one policeman and blinded another with a bombing in San Francisco, the only reason they didn't kill innocent people in Greenwich Village is that they were so stupid, the bombs blew up early and they just killed themselves. After that when they went underground, I understand they indeed wanted to make sure they didn't want to hurt anybody (Ayers himself said as much), but they still bombed a NYC police station and the f***ing Pentagon and Ayers still founded the group itself. The fact he hasn't spent any time apologizing for such transgressions is a bit disturbing, even with the good he has done in his later days. You can't just use the goverment's idiocy as an excuse to do bad things. We'd have PLENTY of reason to do bad things now with Dubya as President by that logic.

Edited August 27, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[lostfan]

No I was going to post what AHB posted, besides fox who "accidentally" broadcasted it, there is legal questions on that commercial, one is the use of footage and another I believe is something about its donors. I think it's going to the FEC.

 

Stupid ad though. I don't think we can compare 60s terrorism of radical youth groups during the Vietnam war to todays radical Islamic terror. I mean, Obama ran against Bobby Rush in 2000, does that mean he's against the radical groups like the black panthers? Not really, it just doesn't matter. Ayers is now a key person in effective ways of reaching inner city schools. He's helping America. He's said those comments were distorted. That committee was to again, help kids in inner city schools. How terrorist, how rogue, how stupid.

$$$$

Maybe it's just cuz of what my occupation is, but I HATE when people misuse and abuse the concept of "terrorism" and try to lump it all together for shallow political purposes.

[whitesoxfan101]

$$$$

Maybe it's just cuz of what my occupation is, but I HATE when people misuse and abuse the concept of "terrorism" and try to lump it all together for shallow political purposes.

 

I would agree that the stuff Ayers group did isn't nearly the same as modern terrorism, but it's still inexcuseable and awful and he still hasn't apologized for it.

[mr_genius]

Ayers was merely an incompetent Timothy McViegh.

 

He has had everything just handed to him in life, including his position as professor. He is basically still the asshat kid of the CEO of Common Wealth Edison. I'm not surprised he has had his mitts in the Chicago Public school system, seeing how it is a total disaster. I wouldn't want this idiot to mow my lawn, let alone have any sort of say in important matters.

 

*2 cents spent*

[DukeNukeEm]

National polls are still useless. Check the swing states and do the math, that's where it matters (unfortunately).

Yea but at some point you'll need public support in order to move legislation. If you dont win the popular vote you wont have a very good approval rating at the onset of your presidency you wont be able to push your policies quickly enough. The only real out is crossing your fingers for a 9/11 or something to rally everyone behind you.

[kapkomet]

Yea but at some point you'll need public support in order to move legislation. If you dont win the popular vote you wont have a very good approval rating at the onset of your presidency you wont be able to push your policies quickly enough. The only real out is crossing your fingers for a 9/11 or something to rally everyone behind you.

Go read the MUST READ THIS THREAD BEFORE POSTING and sign up, my friend.

 

[Balta1701]

Yea but at some point you'll need public support in order to move legislation. If you dont win the popular vote you wont have a very good approval rating at the onset of your presidency you wont be able to push your policies quickly enough. The only real out is crossing your fingers for a 9/11 or something to rally everyone behind you.

Counterpoint though...Bush got through 2 of his biggest domestic policy achievements before 9/11 even happened...the initial tax cut package and no child left behind were both through Congress before 9/11, Bush was already (according to Qwest) asking people for warrantless wiretapping before 9/11, and IIRC Bush was already placing the government restrictions on stem cell research before 9/11.

[HuskyCaucasian]

For what it's worth, the Libertarian Party is declaring that Bob Barr is the only presidential candidate on the Texas ballot. They claim the republicans and democrats missed the deadline to file.

 

My guess is that there is an exception for late conventions and the LP is just too giddy to realize it.

Edited August 27, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[bmags]

I would agree that the stuff Ayers group did isn't nearly the same as modern terrorism, but it's still inexcuseable and awful and he still hasn't apologized for it.

 

Alright so here's my last point. And this isn't intended as a "but your guy does it, too", but more of an explanation in why I don't think it matters.

 

G. Gordon Liddy is friends with McCain. He took part in one of the darkest moments in White House history with ruthless abandon. To my knowledge from when I last heard him mention it, he hasn't apologized. Now he's an active participant in the political process as a radio host and commentator since he's calmed down from his craziness of the early-mid 90s. John McCain is friends with G. Gordon Liddy.

 

Should I assume that John McCain then supports political corruption (aside from the Keating 5)? Does his friendship with Liddy raise questions to his judgment?

 

Now, again, I don't think so, but I don't think so with Ayers too. John McCain was in Vietnam when this all happened, and probably gained his friendship with him after he became a million-selling author and political pundit. It certainly draws parallels between the two.

[clyons]

Alright so here's my last point. And this isn't intended as a "but your guy does it, too", but more of an explanation in why I don't think it matters.

 

G. Gordon Liddy is friends with McCain. He took part in one of the darkest moments in White House history with ruthless abandon. To my knowledge from when I last heard him mention it, he hasn't apologized. Now he's an active participant in the political process as a radio host and commentator since he's calmed down from his craziness of the early-mid 90s. John McCain is friends with G. Gordon Liddy.

 

Should I assume that John McCain then supports political corruption (aside from the Keating 5)? Does his friendship with Liddy raise questions to his judgment?

 

Now, again, I don't think so, but I don't think so with Ayers too. John McCain was in Vietnam when this all happened, and probably gained his friendship with him after he became a million-selling author and political pundit. It certainly draws parallels between the two.

 

Well put. What's good for the goose . . .

 

I'll say it: McCain does it too.

 

Both Liddy and Ayers committed criminal acts to further political causes. Both Liddy and Ayers have endorsed acts of violence against agents of the U.S. government. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/05/g...i_n_100134.html Both Liddy and Ayers have hosted events for McCain and Obama (respectively) in their homes. Id.

 

Are Ayers' bombings "worse" than Liddy's burglaries? Yes, they were more destructive and more dangerous. Does that make Obama "worse" than McCain? I don't think so; certainly not enough to give McCain any moral highground.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Let the Bounce Begin:

[bmags]

I don't believe these polls much.. BUt man, if they Repub's actually think seeing Bush and McCain on Monday will help...well, hehe.

[DukeNukeEm]

I don't believe these polls much.. BUt man, if they Repub's actually think seeing Bush and McCain on Monday will help...well, hehe.

During a natural disaster too.

[mr_genius]

I don't believe these polls much.. BUt man, if they Repub's actually think seeing Bush and McCain on Monday will help...well, hehe.

 

they don't. thats why they are trying to sneak Bush in on Monday and McCain goes on the last day (of course). If GW doesn't go to the convention as to attend to executive duties, McCain won't object.

Edited August 29, 2008 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

they don't. thats why they are trying to sneak Bush in on Monday and McCain goes on the last day (of course). If GW doesn't go to the convention as to attend to executive duties, McCain won't object.

For even more fun, they're sending Cheney to Georgia and Azerbaijan after he speaks on Monday per the current schedule. They won't even let him be in the country.

[mr_genius]

For even more fun, they're sending Cheney to Georgia and Azerbaijan after he speaks on Monday per the current schedule. They won't even let him be in the country.

 

haha i didn't know that.

[HuskyCaucasian]

The great fear was that if McCain picked Romney, NV, CO, and MI would be practically in McCain's grip. (NV and CO because Romney is Mormon and MI because of ROmney's dad). Now that it is Palin.... this might open up Obama to take charge in those states.

[BigSqwert]

The great fear was that if McCain picked Romney, NV, CO, and MI would be practically in McCain's grip. (NV and CO because Romney is Mormon and MI because of ROmney's dad). Now that it is Palin.... this might open up Obama to take charge in those states.

I don't see which swing state will improve McCain's chances with the Palin pick.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I don't see which swing state will improve McCain's chances with the Palin pick.

If he's trying to court former Clintonites, it'll tighten a LITTLE. but not enough to make a huge impact.

[BigSqwert]

If he's trying to court former Clintonites, it'll tighten a LITTLE. but not enough to make a huge impact.

Clinton supporters are overwhelmingly pro-choice unlike Palin.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Clinton supporters are overwhelmingly pro-choice unlike Palin.

I dont know if I would accept that as fact. I'd be curious to see a poll on that.

Maybe majority, but I am not sold on "overwhelmingly"