CK3Y1KPzW9k


"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

Is that Obama's "new kind of politics?"

By the way, if you want to see some real "truly vile" (graphic) stuff, look here (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/the-lefts-obscene-hatred-of-the-rest-of-us).

Succinct and hard hitting, yet keeping to the high road.
How do you take the high road and yet still lay a direct hit on your opponent? That's how you do it.

By the way, if you want to see some real "truly vile" (graphic) stuff, look here (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/the-lefts-obscene-hatred-of-the-rest-of-us).That doesn't surprise me that you buy into that stuff. Is that a McCain-endorsed ad?

NK the photographer of the Atlantic shoot admits that she distorted McCain's photos and then photoshopped them . I am a subscriber to the Atlantic and sent them a letter expressing my outrage at both the cover photo and the McCain essay inside . Neither are flattering and both are distortions.

So? Who cares? They are not official campaign ads are they?

I took one look at that cover and knew it was photoshopped. You could tell they all were Except the Vampire one, no one was supposed to see that.

Spit,
Quiet now, you're ruining a perfectly good thread derailment. :)

OH Sorry;)

That doesn't surprise me that you buy into that stuff. Is that a McCain-endorsed ad?

NK, your insults are getting weaker all the time. Surely you can do better.

I don't think NK needs to really say anything insulting the sleazy campaign McCain has been running says enough. Next thing you know the McCain campaign will claim something crazy like Thank John McCain for the Blackberry he helped create it. HAHAHAHAHAHA

I had no idea what he was talking about but I'll try harder to make Steve-O happy.

NK, if you're going to throw out a zinger it should at least be funny... or make sense. Either one.

Atlantic Monthly Editor James Bennet, is drafting and sending an apology letter to John McCain and stating that Greenberg behaved improperly, stating "She has violated the terms of our agreement with her, of our contract with her so we're taking steps. So we're looking into what steps we can see to do something about that."

Bennet asserts the magazine is considering a lawsuit against Greenberg.

Tom, I'll repeat: WHO CARES?
It bears no relation to the topic.

Because the B.O. ad has no substance. If he's going to challenge McCain's honor he's going to lose. If he mocks the fact that McCain can't use a computer because of McCain's war wounds he's going to lose.

Btw spitvenom ;the blackberry reference was a joke by the McCain staffer because of the idiocy of the Obama ad about McCain not being able to use a computer. Not surprised at all however that al-AP took it seriously .

Obama started smearing McCain three months ago by claiming McCain and the Republicans would attack because of his race. McCain made an offer to keep the campaign out of the mud and challenged B.O to a series of Town Hall debates .But he turned it down because he would not be permitted to use his rodeo teleprompter during the debate.

Let Obam make 100 whiney ads about the tone of the campaign as he also wallows in the mud (with or without lipstick) ;he will lose.

because the B.O. ad has no substance. If he's going to challenge McCain's honor he's going to lose. If he mocks the fact that McCain can't use a computer because of McCain's war wounds he's going to lose.OMG, you didn't even watch the video did you?

Yeah I did... like I said... no substance.

NK, Not asking this to offend you in any way, shape or form because I've been in several threads with you over the years and respect your values and
opinions; however, I have often wondered why you care so deeply about what happens in the USA when you're not an American nor reside in the country?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from reading your other posts and comments, I gather that you are Canadian residing in Canada?

Akaetrue
As a neighbor of Canada I try to keep up with the important developments there also . I find no fault in NKs interest in American politics.

Akaetrue
As a neighbor of Canada I try to keep up with the important developments there also . I find no fault in NKs interest in American politics.
I find no fault in it either, and I hope I made that clear.
I was just curious, I hope NK would know that as well.

however, I have often wondered why you care so deeply about what happens in the USA when you're not an American nor reside in the country? I live beside the USA, I can see it - therefore I am well versed in foreign policy.

Edit to add: other american posters here comment on issues outside of the US, have you asked them the same question?

I live beside the USA, I can see it - therefore I am well versed in foreign policy.
Thanks, it's just something I've been wondering:)
I hope you know my question was not meant to insult you.
I was just curious:p

Also it's important to counter the far right people's assertions on this board lest it becomes another Fox News online. You may have noticed in my style of posting that I don't like to see people being scammed or led astray, it's a trait of mine. Many on this board use the term 'liberal' as an insult or a demeaning term, I find that sad that they need to do that to bolster their own beliefs.

I live beside the USA, I can see it - therefore I am well versed in foreign policy

LOL

Palin negotiated with the Canadian government a 1,715-mile gas pipeline that routes from Alaska through Canada. It is a $26 billion project that had been stalled in the Alaskan legislature for 30 years . She got it done in less than 2 years .
Contrast that with Obama sending his economic adviser to Canada to assure them that he doesn't mean what he says about NAFTA.

Thanks.

Tom the fact that Karl Rove said that McCain's campaign crossed a line says a lot about how sleazy a campaign he is running.

I didn't take the blackberry story seriously either I was joking around. You seem to be getting a little hot under the collar in this thread. What's up are you OK?

I love it ! Now Rove is quoted in defense of BO ! Rove was arguing that both sides were stretching the truth. Let's see ;I don't see where he mentions the specifics of where McCain has gone too far ,but he was probably referring to the lipstick business. And when he talked about BO going too far it was because they mocked McCain's inability to use a computer (stuff I've heard repeated here also ) .He gave 3 examples on the FOX interview of how nasty Obama has been on this campaign. He did speak about McCain also ,but not even close to how bad Obama has been.

I would like to point out that President Bush under Rove's political guidance for years suffered the slings and arrows of the Democrat distortion without responding .It drove me nuts that Bush took all the cr*p without responding .I like the Rapid Fire Response Ads from McCain responding to Obama's distortions from the stump .It forces BO to respond in a tit-for tat manner wasting resourse from his suddenly cash strapped campaign. This in turn has kept Obama off message .He thinks he is running against Palin.

I think Obama should put Rove's words in an ad also . What a hoot that would be! The Dems quoting the evil Rove to defend their candidate ! Bwaahaaahaaahaaa!!

How's my demeanor now ?

Much better Tom.

Also it's important to counter the far right people's assertions on this board lest it becomes another Fox News online. You may have noticed in my style of posting that I don't like to see people being scammed or led astray, it's a trait of mine. Many on this board use the term 'liberal' as an insult or a demeaning term, I find that sad that they need to do that to bolster their own beliefs.

LOL, this obsession with FNC can’t be healthy. Neither can the blatant double standard exemplified in the “style” of engaging in the same activity of which you complain. Case in point (so no one is “scammed or led astray”), you just complained of people using “the term 'liberal' as an insult or a demeaning term” in the same paragraph in which you used “the far right” as a pejorative. Sad, isn’t it?

It’s also interesting that someone who has complained so much about negative posts on Obama would ask “who cares” when a media member posts vile, hateful, photoshopped images of McCain, and claim “it bears no relation to the topic” on a post about “honor” no less. Where is the “honor” in the mainstream media’s coverage of McCain? Where is the “honor” in posting a manufactured image of a bloodied, evil looking McCain or of an ape defecating on his head? Where is the “honor” in seeing these images and not condemning them for the filthy, disgusting, divisive, inexcusable attack that they are?

It’s also relevant because your “honor” ad begins with a quote from WAPO (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/09/does_the_truth_matter_anymore.html ) that McCain’s ad was “truly vile.”


And now comes a truly vile McCain ad accusing Obama of supporting legislation to offer "'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners."

What is “truly vile” about the truth here, NK? As I pointed out on your other anti-McCain piece on this subject, McCain is exactly right about the bill in question ( http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session ) and the Obama campaign and the WAPO columnist are playing loose with the facts in stating the bill’s primary intent was “written to protect young children from sexual predators ( http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzI3ZDUzOTE0ZThlMTU3MTY0MDI4ZTY0MTZhY2I2MGY=).” Unfortunately, that’s politics, but it’s no more “truly vile” for McCain to use one feature of the bill against his opponent than it is for his opponent to use one feature of the bill to call McCain a liar. The images I linked to, now that’s “truly vile.”

Case in point (so no one is “scammed or led astray”),Just because they are in the same paragraph doesn't mean that you have to distort the meaning to your liking. Go back and read my post. By "my style of posting" I refer to the way I help people on this site: makng sure that they don't get scammed by fly-by-night websites or led astray by faulty computer repair advice that may harm their computer. That's why I have a lot of those little green boxes - for helping others. Yes it also means that I like to counter posting made here by people who main purpose to to demean those who believe in a different political ideology.


It's also interesting that someone who has complained so much about negative posts on Obama I didn't complain so much that there were negative posts but the fact that the board was being spammed with them for a while. Notice how the McCain opponents have kept things nice and tidy and not fill the board up with threads?

would ask “who cares” when a media member posts vile, hateful, photoshopped images of McCain, and claim “it bears no relation to the topic” on a post about “honor” no less. Where is the “honor” in the mainstream media's coverage of McCain? Where is the “honor” in posting a manufactured image of a bloodied, evil looking McCain or of an ape defecating on his head? Are those official Obama campaign images endorsed by the candidates? 'Cause that's what this thread is all about. Anyone can dig up images made in Photoshop that make the another person look bad, hell 14 years olds do it on discussion boards all the time, are you going to post those too and scream that Obama is running a vile campaign?


What is “truly vile” about the truth here, NK? As I pointed out on your other anti-McCain piece on this subject, McCain is exactly right about the bill in question (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session)The McCain ad states:

The campaign of Senator John McCain on Tuesday unveiled a new television advertisement claiming that Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee, favors “comprehensive sex education” for kindergarten students.
“Learning about sex before learning to read?” the narrator asks in the 30-second advertisement, which the campaign says will be shown in battleground states and on national cable. Whereas the truth is:

to provide an “age and developmentally appropriate” sex education curriculum for older students. At most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators. And parents of children of all ages had the right to withdraw their children from the classes.

Just because they are in the same paragraph doesn't mean that you have to distort the meaning to your liking.

Right back at you, NK.


Go back and read my post. By "my style of posting" I refer to the way I help people on this site: makng sure that they don't get scammed by fly-by-night websites or led astray by faulty computer repair advice that may harm their computer.

That would be fine IF you hadn't prefaced it with "to counter the far right people's assertions on this board lest it becomes another Fox News online." You weren't talking about "faulty computer repair advice," you were referring to "far right people's assertions."


That's why I have a lot of those little green boxes - for helping others. Yes it also means that I like to counter posting made here by people who main purpose to to demean those who believe in a different political ideology.

Who cares how many "little green boxes" anyone has? How many "little green boxes" does it take to make your assumptions true?


I didn't complain so much that there were negative posts but the fact that the board was being spammed with them for a while. Notice how the McCain opponents have kept things nice and tidy and not fill the board up with threads?

Are you possibly overestimating your affect here?


Are those official Obama campaign images endorsed by the candidates? 'Cause that's what this thread is all about. Anyone can dig up images made in Photoshop that make the another person look bad, hell 14 years olds do it on discussion boards all the time, are you going to post those too and scream that Obama is running a vile campaign?

Do they gave out "little green boxes" for spin? Where did I even remotely imply the images came from or were endorsed by the Obama campaign? I responded to the content of the ad with something that really is "truly vile." If Obama wants to claim certain acts against him are "truly vile" and if you want to keep people from being "scammed or led astray," they need to understand the difference between political spin and "truly vile" nonsense. I believe I've demonstrated the difference well, as well as the truth of what the bill was about.

More on Obama's 'honor' and this time from his own campaign telling lies (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-1.html) about both McCain and Rush Limbaugh:


From the Fact Check Desk: Obama's New Spanish Language TV Ad Es Erróneo

September 17, 2008 5:53 PM

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. has launched a new Spanish-language TV ad that seeks to paint Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. as anti-immigrant, even tying the Republican to his longtime conservative talk-radio nemesis Rush Limbaugh.

As first reported by the Washington Post, Obama's ad features a narrator saying: "They want us to forget the insults we’ve put up with…the intolerance…they made us feel marginalized in this country we love so much."

The screen then shows these two quotes from Limbaugh:

“…stupid and unskilled Mexicans”
—Rush Limbaugh

"You shut your mouth or you get out!”
—Rush Limbaugh

The narrator then says, “John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote…and another, even worse, that continues the policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families. John McCain…more of the same old Republican tricks.”

There are some real factual problems with this ad, which is titled “Dos Caras,” or two faces.

First of all, tying Sen. McCain – especially on the issue of immigration reform – to Limbaugh is unfair.

Limbaugh opposed McCain on that issue. Vociferously. And in a larger sense, it’s unfair to link McCain to Limbaugh on a host of issues since Limbaugh, as any even occasional listener of his knows, doesn’t particularly care for McCain.

Second, the quotes of Limbaugh’s are out of context.

Railing against NAFTA in 1993, Limbaugh said, "If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine 'cause those are the kinds of jobs NAFTA is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do -- let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."

Not one of his most eloquent moments, to be sure, but his larger point was that NAFTA would mean that unskilled stupid Mexicans would be doing the jobs of unskilled stupid Americans.

I’m not going to defend how he said it, but to act as if this was just a moment of Limbaugh slurring Mexicans is not accurate. Though again, certainly if people were offended I could understand why.

The second quote is totally unfair. In 2006, Limbaugh was mocking Mexican law, and he wrote:

“Everybody's making immigration proposals these days. Let me add mine to the mix. Call it The Limbaugh Laws:

“First: If you immigrate to our country, you have to speak the native language. You have to be a professional or an investor; no unskilled workers allowed. Also, there will be no special bilingual programs in the schools with the Limbaugh Laws. No special ballots for elections. No government business will be conducted in your language. Foreigners will not have the right to vote or hold political office.

“If you're in our country, you cannot be a burden to taxpayers. You are not entitled to welfare, food stamps, or other government goodies. You can come if you invest here: an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage. If not, stay home. But if you want to buy land, it'll be restricted. No waterfront, for instance. As a foreigner, you must relinquish individual rights to the property.

“And another thing: You don't have the right to protest. You're allowed no demonstrations, no foreign flag waving, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our President or his policies. You're a foreigner: shut your mouth or get out! And if you come here illegally, you're going to jail.

“You think the Limbaugh Laws are harsh? Well, every one of the laws I just mentioned are actual laws of Mexico today! That' how the Mexican government handles immigrants to their country. Yet Mexicans come here illegally and protest in our streets!

“How do you say ‘double standard’ in Spanish? How about: ‘No mas!’”

But even if one is uninclined to see Limbaugh's quotes as having been taken unfairly out of context, linking them to McCain makes as much sense as running a quote from Bill Maher and linking it to Obama.

Asked for backup as to how Obama could link McCain to Limbaugh, the campaign provided this interview with McCain refusing to condemn the Minutemen from from the Kansas City Star:

Q: ‘Are they a good thing? The Civil Defense Corps, do you think -- do they help in the immigration fight, or not?’

A: ‘I think they're citizens who are entitled to being engaged in the process. They're obviously very concerned about immigration.’

Q: ‘Are they helpful?’

A: ‘I think that's up to others to judge. I don't agree with them, but they certainly are exercising their legal rights as citizens.’

Asked about the “lies” they’re accusing McCain of telling, the Obama campaign provided evidence that McCain in July 2008 told La Raza that he would have voted for the DREAM act, a bill that provides scholarships for the children of illegal immigrants, even thought he earlier in the campaign season said he would have voted against the bill.

Let’s delver further into this.

In the November 2007, Myrtle Beach Sun-News, McCain said of the DREAM Act, which he had cosponsored in the past, "I think it has certain virtues associated with it. And I think other things have virtues associated with it. But the message is they want the borders secured first."

The newspaper noted that McCain said he’d vote against a temporary worker program, even though he supports the idea. "I will vote against anything until we secure the borders," he said. "There is no way we're going to enact piecemeal immigration reform."

Before La Raza, McCain was asked by a young Latina if he’d support the DREAM Act, and he said, “Yes. Yes.”

The full exchange, however, goes like this:

QUESTIONER: Hi. I’m a part of One Dream 2009 and I am one of the 6 million who either have an undocumented parent or is undocumented and I wanted to know if you would support humanity all around the world and support our Dream Act that we are trying to pass.

MCCAIN: Yes. Yes. Thank you. But I will also enforce the existing laws of a country. And a nation’s first requirement is the nation’s security, and that’s why we have to have our borders secured. But, we can have a way and a process of people obtaining citizenship in this country. And, we cannot penalize people who come here legally and people who wait legally. And so, that’s a fundamental principle on which we have to operate. Thank you.

The Obama campaign also provided a number of seemingly conflicting comments McCain has made about offering greater funding for education programs in the No Child Left Behind act -- telling the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials in June that he “would fully fund those programs that have never been fully funded,” while not suggesting any greater funding for the bill when he’s talked about education in front of whiter audiences.

That ignores the fact that McCain has suggested reallocating the way the $23 billion for NCLB is spent.

McCain has changed his rhetoric and his emphasis when discussing immigration after almost losing the GOP presidential nomination because of it.

He now says the borders must be secured before anything else happens. And in that, he’s opened himself up to charges of flip-flopping, though the Obama campaign is quoting him selectively and unfairly to make their points.

The greater implication the ad makes, however, is that McCain is no friend to Latinos at all, beyond issues of funding the DREAM act or how NCLB money is distributed. By linking McCain to Limbaugh’s quotes, twisting Limbaugh’s quotes, and tying McCain to more extremist anti-immigration voices, the Obama campaign has crossed a line into misleading the viewers of its new TV ad. In Spanish, the word is erróneo.

Yeah, let Obama teach us something about honor.

There were a bunch of us that opposed McCain's "comprehensive " immigration plan. If he proposes it again I will oppose it again unless the border fence is completed first.