Deeply Concerned for Our Country

[murra]

I'm no mind reader but I'm guessing it was this:

 

"What I took from that day was that the street (for whatever reason) had all succumbed to the unfortuanate Bush-bashing that our media presented us. Because of this, without really understanding why, they abandoned their reasons and their political alignments. From this I understood that one, the "American" is extremely hypocritical, and two, once you're brainwashed you can't go back."

 

You're not a mind-reader or a reader either I guess.

 

You realize I was upset because of the bolded word, right?

 

"without really understanding why, they abandoned their reasons and their political alignments"

[murra]

Did you ever consider that maybe they didn't enjoy having a complete stranger at their doorstep and were just a little bit irritated?

 

Fantastic decision to rescind your previous opinion of me sir.

[Wraith]

You're not a mind-reader or a reader either I guess.

 

You realize I was upset because of the bolded word, right?

 

"without really understanding why, they abandoned their reasons and their political alignments"

Why the personal insults? You're trying awfully hard to sound like an intellectual and you discredit that with insults.

 

You honestly don't see how your statement implies that in order to dislike Bush you need to have been brainwashed by the media?

[PastaJoe]

Your statement defines the problem we are speaking of. Tom Reynolds does not equal George W. Bush simply because they are both Republicans.

 

I have not liked GWB since he was elected because of the tactics he used to defeat McCain back in the 2000 primaries. Hell, McCain didn't like Bush because of that. Now, eight years later, it looks like Bush is going to defeat McCain again.

 

A vote against Bush does not have to mean a vote for Obama. Bush isn't running any more.

 

McCain should have considered the implications of voting with Bush 90% of the time, and presenting Bush-like policies regarding Iraq, corporate tax breaks, and the economy. Bush isn't running, but his policies are as offered by McCain.

[elegantelliotoffen]

Why the personal insults? You're trying awfully hard to sound like an intellectual and you discredit that with insults.

 

You honestly don't see how your statement implies that in order to dislike Bush you need to have been brainwashed by the media?

 

I love when the righties complain about "irrational bush hatred" when 8 years later they are still manufacturing ways to blame Bill Clinton for everything!

[murra]

Why the personal insults? You're trying awfully hard to sound like an intellectual and you discredit that with insults.

 

You honestly don't see how your statement implies that in order to dislike Bush you need to have been brainwashed by the media?

 

You're trying awfully hard to be offended on a message board. My statement implies what it does, but you missed the point if you think that it was all people who dislike bush are brainwashed. Instead, it was all people who irrationally dislike bush may lead to some negative overall implications on our government.

[Kelly the Dog]

I know you were directing your reply to murra, but I should answer too as murra was replying to my post.

 

I am not saying Obama is necessarily a terrorist sympathizer. I am saying it appear that he has been willing to accept help from some people of character that I would describe as heinous. The original post in this thread names a lot more than one thing that should make people have doubts about who Obama really is.

I repeat the question. What has he ever done that you truly object to outside of sitting in a room? There is ZERO, none, nada, zip, nothing that has ever even been insinuated that Obama has even discussed, or mentioned the word terrorism with Ayers, let alone condoned it. Everything he has ever said about it was that they were despicable acts that had no place anywhere in our society. Numerous other people that worked with Ayers on those boards said his past never came up. Again, there is nothing that he has actually done that I would think you would find objectionable except be in the same room with someone.

[elegantelliotoffen]

I know you were directing your reply to murra, but I should answer too as murra was replying to my post.

 

I am not saying Obama is necessarily a terrorist sympathizer. I am saying it appear that he has been willing to accept help from some people of character that I would describe as heinous. The original post in this thread names a lot more than one thing that should make people have doubts about who Obama really is.

 

Are you equally as concerned with John McCain's relationship with G. Gordon Liddy?

[Wraith]

You're trying awfully hard to be offended on a message board. My statement implies what it does, but you missed the point if you think that it was all people who dislike bush are brainwashed. Instead, it was all people who irrationally dislike bush may lead to some negative overall implications on our government.

None of us were on that door step with you that day. I have no idea what they did or did not say to you.

 

But I can say that just because they did not articulate their disapproval of George Bush in a way that satisfied you, without notice, at their front door, it does not mean that their disapproval is irrational and/or driven by the media.

[erynthered]

McCain should have considered the implications of voting with Bush 90% of the time, and presenting Bush-like policies regarding Iraq, corporate tax breaks, and the economy. Bush isn't running, but his policies are as offered by McCain.

 

 

 

And yet you're comfortable with a guy who's hardly stepped foot in Congress to pass any meaningful legislation. And I believe has voted over 97% with the Democruds, with a congress that has a 9% approval rating who have been in control of congress since 06. Right. Got it.

 

Makes sence now that you put it that way, Joe.

 

 

Drink up.

[murra]

None of us were on that door step with you that day. I have no idea what they did or did not say to you.

 

But I can say that just because they did not articulate their disapproval of George Bush in a way that satisfied you, without notice, at their front door, it does not mean that their disapproval is irrational and/or driven by the media.

 

And that's a fair assessment for you to make. Regardless, all it shows to me is that you like to dance around topics by refuting stories as being valid when they were just an attempt to personalize what is generally an impersonal topic.

[scribo]

McCain should have considered the implications of voting with Bush 90% of the time, and presenting Bush-like policies regarding Iraq, corporate tax breaks, and the economy. Bush isn't running, but his policies are as offered by McCain.

Outstanding job reciting the DNC's talking points verbatim. Are you aware the 90% number you throw around is only for 2007? In fact, McCain's support of President Bush's position has been as low as 77 percent (in 2005), and his support for his party's position has been as low as 67 percent (2001).

[Kelly the Dog]

Outstanding job reciting the DNC's talking points verbatim. Are you aware the 90% number you throw around is only for 2007? In fact, McCain's support of President Bush's position has been as low as 77 percent (in 2005), and his support for his party's position has been as low as 67 percent (2001).

And Obama's "liberal voting record is not even close to being the most liberal Senator. In fact, he voted with Bush 49% of the time. He was the 11th most liberal and the 14th most liberal in his first two years. And that doesn't even count all votes, just the heightened partisan ones arbitrarily tabulated by a Republican magazine. Amongst all votes it's not even close.

 

Works both ways.

[elegantelliotoffen]

And Obama's "liberal voting record is not even close to being the most liberal Senator. In fact, he voted with Bush 49% of the time. He was the 11th most liberal and the 14th most liberal. And that doesn't even count all votes, just the heightened partisan ones tabulated by a Republican magazine. Amongst all votes it's not even close.

 

Works both ways.

 

I thought John Kerry was the most liberal......and then Hillary was the most liberal......

[erynthered]

And Obama's "liberal voting record is not even close to being the most liberal Senator. In fact, he voted with Bush 49% of the time. He was the 11th most liberal and the 14th most liberal in his first two years. And that doesn't even count all votes, just the heightened partisan ones arbitrarily tabulated by a Republican magazine. Amongst all votes it's not even close.

 

Works both ways.

 

 

He wouldnt have looked to good voting against funding the troops. But thats a vote with Bush, Yippie!!

[scribo]

I repeat the question. What has he ever done that you truly object to outside of sitting in a room? There is ZERO, none, nada, zip, nothing that has ever even been insinuated that Obama has even discussed, or mentioned the word terrorism with Ayers, let alone condoned it. Everything he has ever said about it was that they were despicable acts that had no place anywhere in our society. Numerous other people that worked with Ayers on those boards said his past never came up. Again, there is nothing that he has actually done that I would think you would find objectionable except be in the same room with someone.

The short answer is yes. He has proposed a few plans (health care, taxes, foreign relations, withdraw from Iraq) that I truly object to.

 

As for this terrorist kick, no, but my point is that there is way too much unknown about these dealings and associations that would enable me to be comfortable voting for him to be our president. Did you read the part in the original post about Aiham Alsammarae? What about his campaign's initial lies regarding how it was spending money with Acorn? Don't forget about Rezko. There is clear underhandedness there.

[scribo]

And Obama's "liberal voting record is not even close to being the most liberal Senator. In fact, he voted with Bush 49% of the time. He was the 11th most liberal and the 14th most liberal in his first two years. And that doesn't even count all votes, just the heightened partisan ones arbitrarily tabulated by a Republican magazine. Amongst all votes it's not even close.

 

Works both ways.

Agreed, completely.

[Wraith]

And that's a fair assessment for you to make. Regardless, all it shows to me is that you like to dance around topics by refuting stories as being valid when they were just an attempt to personalize what is generally an impersonal topic.

I'm sorry, what topic is it that I'm supposedly dancing around?

 

Because I'm talking about the disapproval of Bush/Media/Brainwashing and I've think I've done a pretty good job of sticking to it.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I know you were directing your reply to murra, but I should answer too as murra was replying to my post.

 

I am not saying Obama is necessarily a terrorist sympathizer. I am saying it appear that he has been willing to accept help from some people of character that I would describe as heinous. The original post in this thread names a lot more than one thing that should make people have doubts about who Obama really is.

And McCain hasn't, your reply is disingenuous, Keating 5, Abramoff, Oxy boy and there are others, he named a running mate whose husband was a Member of the Alaska Secessionist Party, despite their denials.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Outstanding job reciting the DNC's talking points verbatim. Are you aware the 90% number you throw around is only for 2007? In fact, McCain's support of President Bush's position has been as low as 77 percent (in 2005), and his support for his party's position has been as low as 67 percent (2001).

2007 was actually 95% of the time with Bush and the now famous clip of JMC himself saying he voted with Bush 90% was recorded in 2003. Congressional Quarterly calculated the voting record of McCain to AVERAGE 90% over the 7.5 years of Bush in July 08.

 

You are correct that JMC has scored as low as 77% for Bush and 67% for his party during that period.