Thread: Palin makes Obama terrorist claim

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Mccain is simply pointing out BO's past associations with neferious scum like William Ayers, the Syrian mobster who's in the Federal Pen, Rev Wright and a whole cast of others. Amazing...for a bunch of 'supposedly' semi-intelligent posters aboard here, y'all have gone off the deep end for this empty-suit...

Agree. Guilt by association is acceptable. Keating, Wooten, Per Diem are OK too. How does that old saying go. Something about people in glass house? Help me out here BM.

Originally Posted by Milkman

The Vietnam war that was in the height of the 60s, is a little bit....in the past.

You would have thought so, but it does seem to be a somewhat central theme of McCains claim to be the better man however. I was somwhat amused in the VP debate when Palin accused Biden of always looking back (when he was trying to link Mccain to the Bush policies) when several weeks earlier mcCain bout half the questions in his debate back to his Vietnam war experiences.

It seems as though increasing negativity may be the order of the day for the republican ticket- and I think that will definately come back and bite them. Watching the VP debate on CNN, they had one of those "audience trackers" going, and everytime Biden tried to ding McCain, his approval rating dropped right down.

Personally it seems as though voters DO want to hear about solid proposals and initiatives, and react very adversely to a 'negative" campaign strategy.

McCain needs to get back to stressing security, proposals for Iraq withdrawal (in his time frame), and present some solid economic plans -all the while stressing he's not Bush.

Negativity and grandstanding ain't going to cut it.

An answer to the questions: 'Is this a wise move from Palin and would anyone really be dumb enough to fall for it?'...

Originally Posted by keda

Between now and the election it'll get messy and probably dirty...no surprise there because the stakes are high and both sides are holding back some nukes for the final sprint.

Non-critical gaffs, land deals and underhand trading scandals can be ignored, since much like anything else that's down to presentation with one side's probably balanced by the other's lapses and financial skeletons.

Still, aside from whatever we should expect to witness from both sides, McCain's age must be brought up, because that's a point earner among the undecided, and Hussein's background, pedigree and terrorist sympathies must also enter the crosshairs.

Then we may even discover if his roots were in privation, as he prefers to promote, or privilege, under the Brit Colonial system. This may seem unimportant to the blinkered faithful, since we know he enjoys basic rights to privacy like any other Westerner, though it would be nice to know the background of somebody running for a rather important post.

We may even hear more on his passion for his African Heritage, seeing as his Kenyan father pumped a white girl and then buggered off soon after baby appeared. Naturally that could have been due to any combo of perfectly acceptable reasons, including the one where he realises parenthood equates with responsibility, which surely runs counter to the virtues of said Afro heritage.

As for his professed greatest moral failure being alcohol, grass and cocaine in his younger days, which can be excused as youthful indulgence and discovery, one might struggle to accept that a career politician's greatest moral sins are related to harmless fun with recreational drugs. Wouldn't surprise me to learn he had never touched illicit drugs and sensibly created these flaws as a sacrifice, otherwise he would seem too perfect.

I would certainly like to see him answer some tough questions on his background and terrorist sympathies, but can't see that happen so long as the lib media sponsor him as their blue eyed boy.

Managed to seamlessly work ignorance, bigotry and racism into one post. Nice one.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Personally it seems as though voters DO want to hear about solid proposals and initiatives, and react very adversely to a 'negative" campaign strategy.

The negative stuff only appeals to the already hardcore supporters. The undecideds and independents react adversely as you say. At this point it is these undecideds that need to be convinced so negative campaign tactics by either candidate will only push them toward the opponent.

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Mccain is simply pointing out BO's past associations with neferious scum like William Ayers, the Syrian mobster who's in the Federal Pen, Rev Wright and a whole cast of others. Amazing...for a bunch of 'supposedly' semi-intelligent posters aboard here, y'all have gone off the deep end for this empty-suit...

Agree. Guilt by association is acceptable. Keating, Wooten, Per Diem are OK too. How does that old saying go. Something about people in glass house? Help me out here BM.

Keating et. al. don't remotely compare to BO's associations with the aforementioned individuals. Besides, re issue of John McCain and the Keating debacle - he was exonerated I believe?

^ I'm very happy for him. but Obama has not been exonerated for his association with Ayers, because there is nothing to investigate or exonerate. He sat on the same committee for some charity with a professor who had been a radical when Obama was 8 years old. Wow, big deal.

Originally Posted by sabang

^ I'm very happy for him. but Obama has not been exonerated for his association with Ayers, because there is nothing to investigate or exonerate. He sat on the same committee for some charity with a professor who had been a radical when Obama was 8 years old. Wow, big deal.

Well, go here for further illumination

https://teakdoor.com/us-domestic-issu...t-friends.html

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Mccain is simply pointing out BO's past associations with neferious scum like William Ayers

So should all of the thousands of students who have studied under William Ayers at the University of Illinois at Chicago also be held under suspicion and never be aloud to hold any official positions?

Intresting to learn that Palins husband was a registered member of the Alaskan Independence Party who seek to become independent from the USA. Palin has openly supported the Alaskan Independence Party, very patriotic!

Palin's smear is a really low shot:

Palin called the AP's characterization "wrong" saying Obama's ties to Ayers, given his known connection to the Weather Underground, are a legitimate point of criticism of the Democratic presidential nominee. "And he of course, having been associated with that group, a known domestic terrorist group, it's important for Americans to know," Palin said of Ayers. "It's really important for Americans to start knowing who the real Barack Obama is."

Now Obama was associated with the entire group, was he fetching lunch for them during meetings when he was a kid? LOL Political Radar: Palin Defends Ayers’ Comments

Originally Posted by flash

Intresting to learn that Palins husband was a registered member of the Alaskan Independence Party who seek to become independent from the USA. Palin has openly supported the Alaskan Independence Party, very patriotic!

Can you provide a link to her open support? On a side note, is dissent unpatriotic?

Originally Posted by attaboy

Can you provide a link to her open support? On a side note, is dissent unpatriotic?

She attended the 1994 AIP Convention, is dissent unpatriotic? seeking independence from the USA would strike me to be unpatriotic yes.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Originally Posted by Milkman

The Vietnam war that was in the height of the 60s, is a little bit....in the past.

You would have thought so, but it does seem to be a somewhat central theme of McCains claim to be the better man however. I was somwhat amused in the VP debate when Palin accused Biden of always looking back (when he was trying to link Mccain to the Bush policies) when several weeks earlier mcCain bout half the questions in his debate back to his Vietnam war experiences.

It seems as though increasing negativity may be the order of the day for the republican ticket- and I think that will definately come back and bite them. Watching the VP debate on CNN, they had one of those "audience trackers" going, and everytime Biden tried to ding McCain, his approval rating dropped right down.

Personally it seems as though voters DO want to hear about solid proposals and initiatives, and react very adversely to a 'negative" campaign strategy.

McCain needs to get back to stressing security, proposals for Iraq withdrawal (in his time frame), and present some solid economic plans -all the while stressing he's not Bush.

Negativity and grandstanding ain't going to cut it.

McCain calling on his experience, something BO has very little of, granted McCain had called upon his prison experience too often for my liking. The problem here is he is subject to the image the media wishes to present of him when they edit that days news videotape of McCain. By the time he mentions his Vietnam experience in the debates a person can be sick of it because that is the image the media shows people. Do you feel manipulated by the media editing and filtering your experience?

I have to agree that Obama sits in the year 2003 waving his hand in the air saying he was against the war. It's 2008, Mr. Obama, and the fact is we are in a conflict overseas. Sitting in the past waving your hand is of no help. We have an obligation to the Iraqi people, to our allies who joined us in this venture, and to ourselves not to abandon Iraq. Voting against funding the war and voting against the surge is Mr. Obama right. Those things are still relevant today. That is the record he should be running on.

Remember folks, the Democrats voted against funding the war many times. Not only voted against funding but submitted legislation to stop funding. Democrats voted against the surge. They were and many still are for leaving the Iraqis to a civil war blood bath and murderous crime wave of kidnappings and beheadings. The Democrats' consciouses will be clear because they will blame the war on Bush; just like Pilate washing his hands and blaming it on the Jews. No shame.

Shame is a tool of the establishment to render revolutionaries impotent with guilt; it goes something like that. It must be in one of the left's manifestos. It's in there somewhere.

Originally Posted by flash

Originally Posted by attaboy

Can you provide a link to her open support? On a side note, is dissent unpatriotic?

She attended the 1994 AIP Convention, is dissent unpatriotic? seeking independence from the USA would strike me to be unpatriotic yes.

Can you provide a link to the assertion she attended the convention?

In the mid-1990s, the Alaskan Independence Party was experiencing a boom of sorts. A governor had been elected on its ticket in 1990, when the party was not even a decade old. And membership was swelling.

Related
The Unusual Challenges Palin Faced in Alaska (September 4, 2008)

Palin’s Hometown Friends Enjoy the Show (September 5, 2008)




Among the new recruits was Todd Palin, whose wife, Sarah, would later become governor of Alaska. The Palins attended the party’s convention in their hometown, Wasilla, in 1994, according to party officials, where the party called for a revote on statehood and a draft constitution for an independent Republic of Alaska. Mr. Palin joined the party.

Ms. Palin remained a Republican and never joined the Alaskan Independence Party, but returned to its convention in 2006 to speak as candidate for governor. After she had been elected, she recorded a video greeting that was played at the party convention this year. “Good luck on a successful and inspiring convention,” she said. “Keep up the good work, and God bless you.”

Now that she is the Republican nominee for vice president — for a campaign whose motto is “Country first” — the couple’s interaction with the Alaskan Independence Party has gotten attention because of its reputation as a secessionist group.

Alaskan Independence Party officials released a statement Monday saying that Ms. Palin had been a member for two years, from 1994 to 1996, information included in reports in The New York Times and other news outlets. In Internet videos of recent party meetings, other party officials can be seen boasting of Ms. Palin’s past membership.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/us...l?ref=politics

That's pretty good having video of her. She went with her husband who was a member. That is not the same as "openly supported". Did she campaign?

Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, told ABC News on Monday that Palin and her husband Todd were members in 1994, even attending the 1994 statewide convention in Wasilla. Clark was AIP secretary at the time.

This, it should be noted, does not square with official records.

Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, tells ABC News that regardless of the impression given to members of the Alaskan Independence Party, "Gov. Sarah Palin first registered to vote in the state in May 1982 as a Republican, and she has not changed her party affiliate with the Division of Elections since that time."


(McCain campain spox Brian)Rogers says that Palin didn’t attend the AIP convention in 1994, "but she visited them when they had their convention in Wasilla in 2000 as a courtesy since she was mayor."

Political Punc

Originally Posted by attaboy

That's pretty good having video of her. She went with her husband who was a member. That is not the same as "openly supported". Did she campaign?

did you look at the video? it doesn't look like she was there to pick up her husband she looked to be supporting to me.

Did you read my post? Your post also says she was a member which she was not. Her town has a population of 5600 people. For her, as mayor, not to show up at the event would be considered a slight in local politics as well as in common courtesy, I'd bet.

The convention was in 1994 she wasn't mayor until 1996.

Originally Posted by britmaveric

So we should expect a stolen election when McCain wins?

Quite possibly.

Christopher Hitchens, a neo-conservative who can't stand John Kerry, nevertheless believes that the 2004 may have been stolen. From Hitchen's Vanity Fair article "Ohio's Odd Numbers":

"In Cuyahoga County, which includes the city of Cleveland, two largely black precincts on the East Side voted like this. In Precinct 4F - Kerry 290; Bush 21; Peroutka 215. In Precinct 4N - Kerry 318; Bush 11, Badnarik 163. Mr. Peroutka and Mr. Badnarik are, respectively, the presidential candidates of the Constitution and Libertarian Parties. In addition to this eminence, they also possess distinctive (but not particularly African-American-sounding) names. In 2000, Ralph Nader’s best year, the total vote received in Precinct 4F by all third-party candidates combined was eight."

http://makethemaccountable.com/artic...dd_Numbers.htm

Also keep in mind that in the swing states, the Bush regime has been systematically appointing Republican US Attorneys who are committed to changing the voting registration laws to limit voting by certain demographic groups. There is a pending legal proceeding in Wisconsin by Republican US Attorney J.B. Van Hollen seeking voter registration changes that could disenfranchise several hundred thousand voters (John Kerry won Wisconsin in 2004 by 0.4%):

JS Online: Observers fear Van Hollen’s election lawsuit will cause problems

^ Hitchens, a neo-conservative? 555555555

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

^ Hitchens, a neo-conservative? 555555555

"In the interview with journalist John Hari in 2004, in which Hitchens described himself as "on the same side as the neo-conservatives," he also states that he does not support George Bush per se (still less Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld) but rather allies himself with "pure" neo-conservatives, especially Paul Wolfowitz.

Christopher Hitchens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia