McCain or Obama?

[Eagle]

Are out-of-attention, can't-read-thru-it-all comments acceptable?

Just wanted to ask - how much USA people around here could vote for the third option - "i don't care who will be elected"?

I wouldn't worry about if your comments are acceptable or not. Just avoid the ad hominim.

My guess is 20%.

 

[Jarvitä]

A constructive, critical open letter to Obama from a democrat:

http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1359615
http://msplaceddemocrat.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/an-open-letter-to-obama-from-a-virginian/
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1009413&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=flat&cid=25534229

To Barack Hussein Obama,
The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008, that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008, that FBI records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008, about 'race' contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about white America . While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on March 14.
In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea without 'preparations' at lower levels ... Joe Biden repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin ... while the video tape from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered 'I would' to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without 'any' preconditions. While your judgement about meeting with enemies of the USA without preconditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.
On July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that the surge would work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you stated that the surge would not work. While your judgement about military strategy as a potential commander-in-chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.
You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal, while the video tapes of you from more than a
year ago show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be removed immediately ... not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now claim. While your judgement about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about your previous position.
You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar ... and it failed. The record shows that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined Republicans only 13% of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement from the Democrat party. While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth.
In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have talked with a 'Captain' of a platoon in Afghanistan 'the other day' when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had just been deployed to Afghanistan . You lied in that debate.
In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a 'professor of Constitutional law' when in fact you have never been a professor of Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were careful to say that you 'taught a law class' and never mentioned being a 'professor of Constitutional law.' You lied last spring.
You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against
funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially corn ... and he was right .... corn is too expensive at producing ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of
you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and Joe Biden. You lied to America .
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of the votes are procedural. You are one of the few who has not voted 90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate
since the day you got elected. While your absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts.
You did not take an active role in the rescue plan. You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn ... who all helped cause the financial problems of today ... and they all made major contributions to your campaign. While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful.
You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you sponsored as a state senator ... and Acorn has been convicted of voter fraud, real estate subprime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign contributions. Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns. You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you. While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them to America .
During your campaign, you said: 'typical white person.' 'They cling to their guns and religion.' 'They will say that I am black.' You played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about you as racist. You divide America .
You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America , but you forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the Bush tax reductions. You have requested close to $1 billion in earmarks and several mill ion for Acorn. Your
social programs will cost America $1 trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military spending ($100 billion for Iraq ) can pay for it. While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America .
The drain to America 's economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 billion (less than 1% of GDP). You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities. Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear. You are lying to America .
Mr. Obama, you claimed that you 'changed' your mind about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 2008 spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George Soros and MoveOn.org). You are lying to America .
Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers union and college professors in the USA . They eliminated religion from our history. They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with students as young as first grade. They bring their personal politics into the classrooms. They disparage conservatives. They brainwash our children. They are in it for themselves ..... not America . Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans? You are deceiving America .
Oh, Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before anything else. Your character looks horrible. While you make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric. You talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.
1. You lied to America . You lied many times. You distorted facts. You parsed your answers like a lawyer.
2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your advertisements.
3. You had associations with some very bad people for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations.
4. You divide America about race and about class.
Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race baiting, and associations to John McCain: War hero. Annapolis graduate with 'Country first.' Operational leadership experience like all 43 previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy officer for 22 years. 26 years in the Senate. Straight talk. Maverick. 54% of the time participated on bills with Democrats. Never asked for an earmark. The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago.
Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not justify the means. You learned that perjury, false witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated. Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.
Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest character. It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for America first. It is time for America to vote for honesty.
Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character. Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches? Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain? Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? Of course not. So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your dishonesty? Because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security .... and you are preying on their fears with empty promises ... and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for 'change' like the Germans who voted for Adolf Hitler in 1932. The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was. They loved his style. Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you ... your style has camouflaged your dishonesty .... but many of us see you for who you really are ... and we will not stop exposing who you are every day, forever if it is necessary.
Mr. Obama, you are dishonest. Anyone who votes for you is enabling dishonesty.
Mr. Obama , America cannot trust that you will put America first in your decisions about the future.
Mr. Obama, you are not the 'change' that America deserves. We cannot trust you.
Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander-in-chief.
Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to refute all of your false statements. And for whatever reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race baiting, lack of operational leadership experience, and generally dishonest character. The media is diverting our attention from your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships. The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves .... just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon ... Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those men lied about the events ... false witness ... perjury ... your relationships and bad judgements are bad on their own .... but your lies are even worse.
Therefore, by copy of this memo, all who read this memo are asked to send it to everyone else in America before it is too late. We need to do the job that the media will not do. We need to expose your dishonesty so that every person in America understands who you really are before election day.
Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. And
God help America if we deserve you.
Michael Master
McLean, Virginia

 

[Urwumpe]

A constructive, critical open letter to Obama from a democrat:

Constructive? Rather destructive.

The article in the New York Times, he mentions, actually found out that Obama had as little interaction with Ayers as he claimed. It did not show that he met him often or even more often as republican sources claimed.

And Tony Rezko is no terrorist, just as criminal as many other people handling big sums of money... convicted of money laundering, using the money he gathered when raising money for political campaigns.

On the other hand, there is little to tell about the supposed author. Including his own political orientation. What is interesting that he repeats mostly the same already known lies as McCain's team, but there seems to be no reason to believe that the guy is a democrat... he could be a plumber, who knows?

I think it is just another piece of dirt in the campaign. (the fact that it impossible to find the original source of the open letter is pretty helpful - spiral marketing and you help...)

 

[GregBurch]

Well, I said I wouldn't do it, but, what the hell. It's not lies. It's true. As far as I know, every single instance of Obama's changing his position and distorting McCain's record laid out in that document is factually supported.

When you outspend your opponent by 4 to 1 and every news organization except those owned by one person are actively working for your election, though, you don't have to worry about being called out.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, I said I wouldn't do it, but, what the hell. It's not lies. It's true. As far as I know, every single instance of Obama's changing his position and distorting McCain's record laid out in that document is factually supported.

Obamas relation to Ayers? Which was not even big in Ayers own account? Also, I think this one is better for finding the truth as "Viral Open letters without an author".

http://www.factcheck.org

 

[gosavich]

Well, I said I wouldn't do it, but, what the hell. It's not lies. It's true. As far as I know, every single instance of Obama's changing his position and distorting McCain's record laid out in that document is factually supported.

When you outspend your opponent by 4 to 1 and every news organization except those owned by one person are actively working for your election, though, you don't have to worry about being called out.

Do you hear that sound? It's the world's smallest violin and it's playing just for you.

 

[David]

Here's an editorial by Orson Scott Card, about media reporting:

http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html

 

[GregBurch]

Obamas relation to Ayers? Which was not even big in Ayers own account? Also, I think this one is better for finding the truth as "Viral Open letters without an author".

http://www.factcheck.org

Forget who wrote the letter. Are the facts right or not?

I doubt you'll take the time, but if you want to at least see another side to the Ayers question, you could read this:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWI0MjY3NzMyODgxZGM2ZjUwNTE1MmEzOGRiZmFkNWE=

or this:

http://www.gop.com/News/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=768aa784-72f3-4b43-acb6-c5fe81d901cd

or have fun with this:

http://www.muckety.com/saved-map/Ob...6C510F94FE22828CAEDCF0DFCDF77701.map?big=true

or this:

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=64

Obama knows that if the truth of 1) how closely he was associated with Ayers and 2) what Ayers stands for politically were actually understood by mainstream American voters, he could never get elected.

But there's no danger of that.

 

[JamesG]

Just wanted to ask - how much USA people around here could vote for the third option - "i don't care who will be elected"?

The closest you can get to that are third-party, not a chance in hell of winning, candidates. This go around, its Bob Barr the Libertarian (whom I voted for out of mortified indifference to either primary candidates).

Oh and in case you didn't know, the ability, and preferably practical experience at, lying is a job requirement for a democrat candidate.

 

[fort]

What's up ?

 

[Andy44]

In addition to Barr, there is also Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, even less well-known than Barr. Barr was a republican congressman and is a professional politician, which is pretty new for the Libertarian Party, and many in the LP are not happy, believing their party has been hijacked by a so-called "neo-con".

On the left you've got the Greens, if you're into that sort of thing. I'll pass.

 

[GregBurch]

What's up ?

YouTube - Wassup 2008

oh, well ... that changes everything! How could I have been so stupid!? If only I had seen that sooner, I could have saved myself a lot of trouble and embarrassment.

 

[David]

oh, well ... that changes everything!

Heh heh. You said "change." Heh heh.

 

[Missioncmdr]

In addition to Barr, there is also Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, even less well-known than Barr. Barr was a republican congressman and is a professional politician, which is pretty new for the Libertarian Party, and many in the LP are not happy, believing their party has been hijacked by a so-called "neo-con".

On the left you've got the Greens, if you're into that sort of thing. I'll pass.

And do not forget Ralph Nader.

On Barr, I kind of wonder if the Libertarian Party is not really happy with him, why would they elect him as their party's candidate for President? I also like Baldwin. He is not perfect, but I saw part of a third-party Presidential debate on C-SPAN yesterday and he was pretty good.

Personally, I think it might be a record year for third-parties, although the chance of any of them winning one electoral vote is pretty slim.

 

[fort]

Heh heh. You said "change." Heh heh.

Did i read it ? Truly ?

:lol:

GregBurch

oh, well ... that changes everything! How could I have been so stupid!? If only I had seen that sooner, I could have saved myself a lot of trouble and embarrassment.

I put this video because after two months of visit of this blog...

En rase campagne dans l'Indiana

Portraits of deep America, while waiting for the new president

http://indiana.blogs.liberation.fr/indiana/2008/10/amricains-au-bo.html


...it seemed me to reflect part of the opinion of the citizens of the United States harassed by all that falls on their head, and which, vis-a-vis this difficult choice of 4 November has not maybe desire for intending to speak about Ayers and consort or McCain and its 90% of vote with the current president but for looking at the two candidates at height of man and to make their choice. At height of man. It will not be easy.

 

[joeybigO]

oh let's just break out the magical wand and start spreading it around after he gets elected. I'll invite Urwumpe to my house for punch and cookies. Goody goody.

Oh wait he has yet to do a damn thing but call me a typical white man. Now let's see how long that lasts.

What is he going to change? I know NASA will be less funded than FEMA next year but that's okay we here just like simulating going to the moon.

You got 4 years jackcensored make change, not a insult. It's just their logo.

 

[eveningsky339]

What's up ?

YouTube - Wassup 2008

Eh... is this a joke? Seriously?

 

[Andy44]

Hey, look, what do I know? I just cling to my guns and my religion...I'm stupid and my oponion doesn't matter.

Re: Barr and the LP: The LP convention went through a torturous process involving several ballots, 6 I think?, before settling on Barr. He won fair and square by the rules, but the party is now fairly divided. Those who don't like him really don't like him because of his history as a typical republican. Those who support him believe he has really changed his mind over the years and become more libertarian, and they like the idea of an LP candidate who may actually know how to get a few votes for a change.

I met Barr at a gun rights policy conference in the DC area about 4 years ago, and before that I met him when he was a guest speaker at the opening of David Kelley's Objectivist Center in DC, where he spoke about privacy rights. I think Barr is largely authentic; leaving the Republican Party to be an LP'r is certainly not the action of a man who puts his political career ahead of principle, and he's been involved with individual rights movements for many years now.

Not that it matters, thrd parties are a quaint sideshow. Only rarely does a TR or Ross Perot come along who can actually affect the outcome of an election.

 

[GregBurch]

The Hope and Change gravy train:

CBS, scrambling to recover a little of its integrity ...

 

[ar81]

Greg, it tells me that:
1.US needs an upgrade on funding elections law.
2.With world crisis, there are people who really would sacrifice their pockets to take republicans out of power, for US could not withstand another 4 years of crisis.
Not sure if my interpretation is correct.

From my point of view, the culture of a party becomes the culture of a government once elected.
So they put different faces (candidates) to add variety (marketing), but the ruling groups are the same. Elections is a theatrical show.

What do candidates eat?
What clothing brand do they use?
Do they cook?
These are the kind of silly questions you see in the Miss Congeniality contest when you have elections anywhere.

Focusing on the proposals is more important, a campaign of ideas.
In the end a president who likes to vegetables and wear expensive clothing won't matter as much as foreign debt or trade deficit or unemployment and poverty in US. But unfortunately not all voters think around the world.