10-10-08 Pt_1

Eric posted: Oct, 11 2008
Let's see.... The Keating episode... at least McCain has apologized for his actions. He admitted a mistake. Ooop, oh yeah, Obama is too elitist to do that I guess for his actions. No mistake for him. Savings and loan fiasco? Familiar? The one that many high ranking democrats overregulated to force them to go for sub-prime loans? Yeah, very familiar. Obama number 2 on their hitlist of financial recipients of donations over a 12 year stretch, even though he was there only 3 years. Couldn't have been to look the other way, now could it? Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, no admittance of guilt. At least Bill Clinton and Artur Davis apologized. If Davis were running for re-election, I would vote for him because of that apology and the belief he would try to fix it. McCain had the chance to re-dress what he did with Keating, he co-sponsored a bill 2 years ago to try and fix the issues at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but Demos and Repubs (mostly Demos) never let it see the light of day. I guess at least McCain learned something from the Keating affair. What did Obama learn? Pass the blame to someone else and sell it well. I will give him credit, he sold it well, he has shaken the blame off of his shoulders from the ignorant public as a whole. Liddy. Went to jail. Exactly as he should have. Wow, again took blame and accepted responsibility. Your right, it is guilt by association - with those with a conscience. Nicaragua – The Sandinistas were performing massive human rights violations, good for Reagan, and good for McCain. The Sandinistas gained power by promising much in terms of democracy, hoodwinking many from the US to support them, but delivering Marxism/socialism. Now does that sound familiar (rubbing chin) – clue, one of the candidates is not like the others (in my best Sesame Street song) – one is/was a member of a socialist political group called the New Party… At least Murtagh didn’t kill anyone, and last I checked, it is not illegal to defend the rights of the accused in a court of law. Wow, I think that is actually guaranteed in some document I heard about in US Government class… hmmm, let me think…. Annenberg Challenge - When Obama made his first run for political office, articles in both the Chicago Defender and the Hyde Park Herald featured among his qualifications his position as chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a foundation where Ayers was a founder and guiding force. Obama assumed the Annenberg board chairmanship only months before his first run for office, and almost certainly received the job at the behest of Bill Ayers. During Obama’s time as Annenberg board chairman, Ayers’s own education projects received substantial funding. Indeed, during its first year, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge struggled with significant concerns about possible conflicts of interest. With a writ to aid Chicago’s public schools, the Annenberg challenge played a deeply political role in Chicago’s education wars, and as Annenberg board chairman, Obama clearly aligned himself with Ayers’s radical views on education issues. With Obama heading up the board and Ayers heading up the other key operating body of the Annenberg Challenge, the two would necessarily have had a close working relationship for years (therefore “exchanging ideas on a regular basis”). Looking forward to debunking your further posts, this is fun!

Tobias Elmore posted: Oct, 11 2008
Awesome, my first troll!!! I'll end it quickly with this. I love your post because it encompasses the entire argument that McCain/Palin has left.... Obama has not be truthful. Which is interesting because to say that his statements thus far haven't been truthful is to say they have proof of that. Not innuendo... not supposition... not assumption... PROOF. Seeing as McCain is being dominated in the polls, it's now put up or shut up time. So..... where is it? Where's the proof? Ah, but that's the rub isn't it? There is none. All you have is innuendo, supposition and assumptions. You have no proof. I know you have no proof because if you had it, this charge would have already brought Obama down. Why? Because Hillary tried the same thing. Hey, I forget... how did the race turn out for her again? And I can see the your answer now... don't waste my time or yours posting any links to your right wing blogs or Freepervil... I mean Free Republic. Show me legit news organizations and no the Washington Times (you know, the one owned by a rightwing, nutcase cult leader), it doesn't count either. See I have legit news organizations who've backed up everything \'ve said. Unless there's an Insinuation & Speculation Gazette out there, you got nothin'. So Eric thanks for the comment and I also look forward to you spending a good bit of time posting 5 or 6 paragraphs to challenge me so I can bat it down in 1 or 2. Peace.

EveningStarNM posted: Oct, 11 2008
Congratulations, Tobias! It's just sad that your troll is such a poor one. He has absolutely no understanding of logic, and doesn't comprehend that without logic and evidence he ends up looking really stupid. I at least would have been amused when he tried to blame Obama and too much regulation for our current problems. It's just that you have to be the one of the most ignorant people in America to think that, since every bit of actual evidence points the other way, and ignorance is just boring. But maybe you'll get a higher quality of troll in the future. Maybe you'll get a psychopath! They can sometimes be entertaining. (Oh, how I want to make paragraphs!)

Eric posted: Oct, 11 2008
Hey, I again will give credit where credit is due. Obama is smart, smart enough to cover most of his tracks to leave simple reasoning to make the case. But you are correct, reasoning is not beyond a shadow of a doubt. OK, you mentioned non-right wing sites, ok, here's your site. It is even left wing, so argue that out of the park. CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/obama.ayers/?iref=hpmostpop#cnnSTCVideo http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/obama.ayers/?iref=hpmostpop#cnnSTCText So, this of course means he wasn't lying, oh no. Discribe what you mean by 'Lying' should be your next question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQsYzBlXK6M Either Obama is too dumb or too smart to suggest he didn't know this about his 'rehabilitated' friend. Too smart because you guys are buying what he is shoveling. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html

richardshort2001 posted: Oct, 11 2008
cnn.com = left wing, LOL So you admit that when they claim they have proof he is lying then?

EveningStarNM posted: Oct, 11 2008
Such a disappointment, Eric's link. "Obama and Ayers crossed paths on boards, records show". Obama also crossed paths with Lenore Annenberg, a major contributor to both McCain and, apparently, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the project in which Obama and Ayers "crossed paths". Lenore Annenberg GAVE $50 MILLION TO A TERRORIST! I'm betting that she's regretting her contribution to McCain right about now. I swear, McCain and his staff are an absolute idiots.

Eric posted: Oct, 11 2008
No, just Obama. CNN did what they are actually supposed to do, uncover the truth. If you cannot recognize NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, NYTimes, LATimes, Washington Post as Obama supporters, you are more blind than you could ever know. The scary part is that when I see Bill O'Reilly critique the right as much as he does the left, it gets scary to me to suggest their comments about 'fair and balanced' might be closer to the truth than I realized. I'll exclude Hannity, he is way to the right, and definitely in the tank for McCain. I can at least admit that. Many of my friends and not-so-friends all will admit I am a realist, I will cut on my own side if they warrent it. Lets see if you can actually manage am honest bend to yourself. No, Richard, I never said the media reporting for the left is lying, they aren't doing anything they could lie about, it that they aren't even making the attempt to uncover anything at all. That CNN actually DID report something that gives the impression they are being the USA's watchdogs was a breath of fresh air. Uncovering the truth is supposed to be their job. If they find something juicy on McCain, I will be the first to bash him for it. He seems to have learned his lesson with Keating and has been a pretty straight shooter. Oh, Evening Star, thank you for behaving as the majority of the right and left wing nutjobs do, by insulting the opposition. Don't make a solid argument, just call them names. Classy. I may use a bit of sarcasm, but I will not be insulting as you have acted thus far. I enjoy serious discussion, for the rest, I accept the maturity level it is delivered in. Also, the CNN report is much more about Obama and Ayers just 'crossing paths' as you put it. She probably is regretting it due to the collapse of the foundation due to such concerns as Ayers and Obama. Granted this is conjecture. Finally, Tobias, I agree that much of what you report is just as both candidates do, given in the harshest light possible for the opposing side. I do not discount your sources. For example, the McCain ad about Obama supporting sex education for kindergardners was true, but my guess is that it was not Obama's opinion that this should happen; he probably did believe it to revolve around protection of children from deviants. I an not the right wing nutjob you believe me to be; I am a moderate with views that swing to both sides. But if this is how you treat normal discourse, I would understand why I am siding with McCain. McCain has been forthcoming with his views, his past, and shows no signs of being deceptive. Stretching the truth some of the time, but not out and out caught in lies. Obama keeps having to alter his story, and more of what he wrote in his autobiographies keeps coming up not quite with the ring of truth. That is my concern with him. This is why I am so concerned with his past, there is too much missing, and what comes to the surface keeps looking like damage control. He jetisons his baggage when it comes out, not when he should have without our scrutiny.

EveningStarNM posted: Oct, 11 2008
Dear Eric, When the whole world is telling you that you're wrong, maybe you should listen. Just because all those newspapers you cited don't have any good news for McCain doesn't mean that McCain is being treated unfairly. It simply means that there is no good news for McCain. There's a reason for that, and it's not because there's a conspiracy against McCain. It's because the vast majority of people realize that McCain is no good for our country. I realize that honesty and introspection are not in vogue among you Republicans, but maybe you should look inside yourselves for the source of your problems -- not to mention the problems you're forcing on the rest of us. The Republican Party is going to lose this election in a big way, and you did it to yourselves.