So this story about some random McCain supporter

[Brugdor]

So yeah, the difference is McCain should be coming out much stronger against this than he is, rather than implicitly condoning it through the actions of his veep.

What "actions" is Palin guilty of? Pointing out Obama's association with a known domestic terrorist? Again, it was done before McCain and Palin brought it up. So she hasn't really done anything differently except now the Republicans are doing it so it's a big deal. It's a blatant double standard and hypocritical of the left who've sat by for 8 years and let it happen to Bush without saying a word.

[Hoopy Frood]

So yeah, the difference is McCain should be coming out much stronger against this than he is, rather than implicitly condoning it through the actions of his veep.

What "actions" is Palin guilty of? Pointing out Obama's association with a known domestic terrorist?

Nice spin there, Brug.

She hardly "pointed out his association with" Ayers. She said that he was "palling around" with the guy.

Now was this when he was 8 years old, or when he served on the same board of a charity long after Ayers was an established member of the University of Chicago faculty (Oh, yeah, there's a bastion of liberalism right there  ) and a local person of note in Chicago.

By that logic, if any of you on this board were to become terrorists, I guess I would be palling around with you by nature of my being administrator here.

[Brugdor]

So yeah, the difference is McCain should be coming out much stronger against this than he is, rather than implicitly condoning it through the actions of his veep.

What "actions" is Palin guilty of? Pointing out Obama's association with a known domestic terrorist?

Nice spin there, Brug.

She hardly "pointed out his association with" Ayers. She said that he was "palling around" with the guy.

Now was this when he was 8 years old, or when he served on the same board of a charity long after Ayers was an established member of the University of Chicago faculty (Oh, yeah, there's a bastion of liberalism right there  ) and a local person of note in Chicago.

By that logic, if any of you on this board were to become terrorists, I guess I would be palling around with you by nature of my being administrator here.

Or when Ayers hosted the launching of Obama's political career in his home. Obama flat out lies about this and says it isn't true but his own political mentor who prepared him to take her place says she wasn't the one that the party was for as Obama claims. Then of course you have Obama both being mentioned by Ayers in his book along with Obama's review of it appearing in it.

These guys were far more than business associates. Again, I'm not claiming they were best friends or anything of the sort but if there's nothing to hide then why is Obama lying?

[Doombot]

even if Obama was Muslim, so the fuck what?

It's very sad that just saying someone is Muslim is a slur. (Not saying anyone here is doing that.)

Muslim does not equal Extremists that want to enact Sharia Law. Nor does Muslim equal Arab or Arab equal Extreamist.

Elsheba Khan at the grave of her son, Specialist Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan.

The text below is from Digg. Not my words.

"I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions."

[Brugdor]

Muslim does not equal Extremists that want to enact Sharia Law. Nor does Muslim equal Arab or Arab equal Extreamist.

Nor does christian or evangelical but they've been used to paint Palin as an extremist by the far left. And hey, if the facts didn't fit the narrative they just made them up as they went along.

Venture into any of the liberal blogs or forums such as Kos, DU or HuffPo (or even Fark) and it's pretty plain to see that there's an overwhelming amount of bigotry towards christians when they are brought up. We are portrayed as being stupid constantly for not believing in scientific theories about creation or evolution. Note - I may be stupid but I know there are four letters in the word jobs not three as Biden claims.

My point being again that all this behavior has existed on the political left for years and it's suddenly a big deal because a few nutjobs on the right yelled something at a McCain rally. *shrug*

Side note - perhaps painting everyone in flyover country as clinging to their bibles and guns wasn't the smartest move by Obama?

And my heart goes out to Elsheba Khan and the rest of her family.

[Jeff]

Ah yes, the "neener-neener, they started it first" defense. Classy.

[Brugdor]

Ah yes, the "neener-neener, they started it first" defense. Classy.

I never said that. I'm merely pointing out that the same behavior exists on the other side of the fence and apparently that's ok so long as the sticks and stones don't start flying into the glass houses filled with black pots on the left's side of it.

[Jeff]

Of course. You simply wished to make a factual point and draw no further implications or inferences from it. Your moral objections to comments "from the left" would be more believable if you seemed to give a damn about the comments coming from "the right", except to argue in their support.

[Brugdor]

Of course. You simply wished to make a factual point and draw no further implications or inferences from it. Your moral objections to comments "from the left" would be more believable if you seemed to give a damn about the comments coming from "the right", except to argue in their support.

Well I've referred to them and their counterparts on the left as nutjobs, loonies, and unhinged all in this one thread so I thought I'd made my feelings rather clear about how I feel about their actions.

[Hoopy Frood]

Muslim does not equal Extremists that want to enact Sharia Law. Nor does Muslim equal Arab or Arab equal Extreamist.

Nor does christian or evangelical but they've been used to paint Palin as an extremist by the far left. And hey, if the facts didn't fit the narrative they just made them up as they went along.

Venture into any of the liberal blogs or forums such as Kos, DU or HuffPo (or even Fark) and it's pretty plain to see that there's an overwhelming amount of bigotry towards christians when they are brought up. We are portrayed as being stupid constantly for not believing in scientific theories about creation or evolution. Note - I may be stupid but I know there are four letters in the word jobs not three as Biden claims.

My point being again that all this behavior has existed on the political left for years and it's suddenly a big deal because a few nutjobs on the right yelled something at a McCain rally. *shrug*

Side note - perhaps painting everyone in flyover country as clinging to their bibles and guns wasn't the smartest move by Obama?

And my heart goes out to Elsheba Khan and the rest of her family.

You seem to forget one thing:

75% of the U.S. population identifies themselves as Christian of some form.

75%.

How in the Hell does that make them a persecuted demographic?

And another 18% believe in God in some form (which includes Muslims, Jews, Bahai, and Hindu)

So a whole 7% of the populace is agnostic/atheist.

(I'm not sure where Wiccan and other Pagan religions fall into.)

I'm sick of hearing about Christianity being under attack. It's ridiculous. Sure your idea of how you feel you want to display your concepts of Christianity might be under attack in this country, but the majority has little to worry about Christianity being persecuted.

Do you honestly not see the difference between a supposedly persecuted majority and a persecuted minority?

Do you honestly not see why making disparaging comments about Arabs (who span all religions) is different than calling a fundamentalist evengelical (who make up roughly 25% of the nation) ignorant?

Do you honestly not see the difference between disparaging a religious view (which is a choice) and disparaging an entire ethnicity (which is not)?

[Brugdor]

Do you honestly not see why making disparaging comments about Arabs (who span all religions) is different than calling a fundamentalist evengelical (who make up roughly 25% of the nation) ignorant?

Do you honestly not see the difference between disparaging a religious view (which is a choice) and disparaging an entire ethnicity (which is not)?

And how much of the country identifies itself as evangelical? You say 25% but I'd guess it's much lower. In any case, 25% or less is a minority. In addition to that, most people who identify themselves as christian do so because they think going to church = christian. They have their "fire insurance" but they will find out in the end that it's not going to cover them. My guess from personal observation and listening to christian leadership such as Billy Graham have said on the matter is that maybe 30% of the membership of christian churches today is actually saved. And to make myself clear, I'm including all christian churches in that statement not just non-evangelical ones.

And no, I don't see a difference between bigotry towards race or religion. Bigotry is bigotry.

[Turjan]

Hmm...I sense that you Uhmurrikens are all too caught up in your whole Presidential thing to see the picture from the outside - so here's a potted version for you of how the main players in the US Presidential election have come across in the media so far here in the UK

McCain - he was a prisoner of war you know. Oh, has it been mentioned he was a PoW at all? And while we're on the subject...did you know he was a PoW?
His image is also that of being a long-standing cog in the slow, grinding wheels of the political machine. Apparently, this makes him qualified to decry Obama as having no experience (which is a bit odd to us over here because both candidates are Senators, and neither of them have any experience of being a President. No-one has the kind of 'experience' that's being harped on about until they actually become President, so it does rather make the point moot does it not?).
Ah yes, he was a PoW too.
He claims to be the man who can lead the US out of the current extremely technically complicated financial crisis, yet not long ago, he also apparently whimsically claimed to not even know how to send an email - hardly a great endorsement for someone who would have his finger on the nuclear button if elected.
Oh, and he was a Prisoner of War.
(incidentally, we have trouble over here understanding how the McCain camp continually going on about having been a PoW counts as a "good thing" in the US perception, whereas in the last election, Kerry's war record seemed to end up being used against him. In the gung-ho stakes, how does someone who got caught manage to trump someone who was in combat and received medals? We don't get it I'm afraid)

Palin - oh dear, where to start? She's basically seen as a complete laughing stock over here. She comes across to us Brits like some crazy, gun-toting, religious whackjob Amazon with permanent "foot in mouth" disease. How true that actually may be is a dead issue now - that's how she's come across to us, and that's how the media have painted her. In the eyes of the UK media (with their long-standing familiarity with the endless sleaze in UK politics) Palin finished herself when she tried to use her power as Governor to get her brother in law fired. The UK also has quite a history of female politicians (anyone remember Margaret Thatcher at all?) and 'glamour' is not a word we Brits tend to associate with them, so the sight of Palin standing there dolled up like she's attending some film premiere does not sit well with us, making her look insincere and superficial.

Now onto the other side...

Obama - Change. Change. Changety-change-change-change. Did you want some change with that? Here you go - change. Not just any change, but change WE NEED. No, we're not going to sell you any change you DON'T NEED, just the stuff you do. Change...change is good. Change is everything. Sorry, what? You wanted to know exactly what we're changing? We're changing the changes the other lot made, and our changes are better, do you see? Because it's CHANGE WE NEED.
Seriously, that catchphrase was trite and shallow when the campaign first rolled it out, but now it's been so overused it's just a joke. Of course there'll be change, whoever is elected! The whole slogan thing is just bloody silly.
Bizarrely, we over here don't really give a stuff about Obama being black, or indeed about the gazillion rumours about islam, or his grandparents, or dressing up...the whole race issue just isn't that great a deal here. We are curious to see how long Obama could stay in office before some right-wing white supremacist took a potshot at him though, but really that's the extent of the colour thing to us.
What concerns us more is Obama's glib rhetoric and the fact it's eerily reminiscent of that most loathed ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair. Practically the moment Obama gave his first speech it became apparent that he has the same doublespeak insincerity that Blair had. This worries us because by the time he left office, Blair's spell had worn off and everyone could see the slimy, self-serving shitbag he was underneath...so the thought of a US version of Blair in the Whitehouse being the world's most powerful man is just too scary for words.
Oh, and one last thing - CHAAAAAAANNNNNNNGE!!!!!

Biden - who?
Seriously, since Palin took centre stage as the running mate laughing stock, Biden has simply faded into the background as far as the UK media is concerned. He's seen as Obama's choice to win over McCain's fans, just as Palin was McCain's choice to win over Hilary Clinton's fans. But beyond that, he really doesn't get much of a look in.

Good luck with your election - doesn't look like you have much to choose from, if the view from this side of the pond is anything to go by.

[Brugdor]

Good luck with your election - doesn't look like you have much to choose from, if the view from this side of the pond is anything to go by.

And you'd be correct with that assessment.

Here is what I'd love to happen in US politics. All the third parties unite into one party that concentrates all of its efforts on removing corruption from DC. That would be THE platform of the party. Term limits, an end to pork barrel spending/earmarks, transparency in spending, etc and so on. That would be the only thing that the various candidates would have to agree on.

This would allow the party to run candidates with either liberal or conservative views on other subjects in whatever areas of the country they were likely to get elected. So they could run a liberal against Ted Kennedy or a conservative against Chambliss for instance. All these people would have to agree on would be that main party platform. If they were all unified in that we could see a fairly quick change in DC.

Of course our two parties have collaborated to make it nearly impossible for a third party to make any headway so it's all just a joke at this point.

[BlueCross]

All the third parties unite into one party that concentrates all of its efforts on removing corruption from DC.

Never gonna happen no matter what system you use.  Human nature.  We'll always have asshats.


Term limits

Term limits suck.  You finally get someone good in there and then you can't keep 'em in.   Vote the bad ones out.  That's how the system works.


an end to pork barrel spending/earmarks

Good luck. 'tit for tat' is how it works, and pork barrel is one of he tits... or tats... (gee, that doesn't sound right).


Of course our two parties have collaborated to make it nearly impossible for a third party to make any headway so it's all just a joke at this point.

Ridiculous.  You make it sound like a conspiracy.  We have a two party system with over 200 years of precedence.  That isn't something you can change overnight, or possibly even within a generation.

[Brugdor]

Term limits

Term limits suck.  You finally get someone good in there and then you can't keep 'em in.   Vote the bad ones out.  That's how the system works.

Of course our two parties have collaborated to make it nearly impossible for a third party to make any headway so it's all just a joke at this point.

Ridiculous.  You make it sound like a conspiracy.  We have a two party system with over 200 years of precedence.  That isn't something you can change overnight, or possibly even within a generation.

A) Yes I'm constantly overwhelmed with the amount of  "good ones" we have in DC 

B) Not ridiculous and not a conspiracy. It's just fact. If you read the link which I've linked here before it goes over how exactly our two parties have worked to eliminate the threat of third party candidates and have been helped along by our media.

Here's an excerpt from the link

But as Ralph Nader told the Center, being barred from the debates leaves no third-party candidate any real chance of serious consideration by the majority of voters in the first place. “The two parties created the debate commission. It’s a private company. And they have set the rules,” he said. “So if they shut you out of the national presidential debates, there is no way, short of being a Perot, of reaching people — just no way. So it’s a two-party elected dictatorship.” In his three previous presidential general election campaigns, Nader has never been allowed to participate in the Commission’s presidential debates.