will mccain replace palin

Then preventative action would be to not vote for Obama. On a serious note, the things that I mentioned are not just accusations, the relationships are admitted by Obama, so there is no need to spend millions of dollars investigating them.

This really has nothing to do about Palin. She brought public notice to the Ayers connection, but people like Wright and Rezko are old news. If there are questionable personal relationships between McCain and any terrorist, religious radical (domestic or foreign), or convicted felon/money launderer/political fixer, etc... I would like to know.

I think that controversial personal relationships are as important to look at as policies.

 

That is not my source. Did you see the last line of my post?

Here it is again, along with the opening line.

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/rezko.trial.verdict.2.740375.html


Jun 4, 2008 11:16 pm US/Central
Jury Finds Tony Rezko Guilty On 16 Of 24 Charges
Political Fundraiser Has Surrendered, To Begin Serving Time Immediately

(CBS) A prominent fundraiser for Sen. Barack Obama and Gov. Rod Blagojevich was convicted Wednesday of fraud and money laundering after a high-profile federal trial provided an unusually detailed glimpse of the pay-to-play politics that has made Illinois infamous.

 

Yes I did.
I just googled:

One of the men that Obama has political, business, and personal relationship with is Tony Rezko. Rezko and several others were indicted on federal charges in October 2006, for using their connections to the state boards to demand kickbacks from businesses that wanted to do business with the state. While the others pleaded guilty to the charges, Rezko pleaded not guilty and was found guilty of 16 of the 24 charges filed against him.

(hence quoting it)

And found it here: http://tinyurl.com/3q5wf8

Nice comparison now as they are both there.

Word for word would you not agree?

 

True. I was really talking about all the mudslinging, if there is anything that should be criminally actioned then they should. Anything less should be left to trashy tabloids not political campaigns (yeah, I'm a dreamer.)

I think you maybe applying two versions (one for Obama and one for Palin) of a morale compass here.

Ayers relationship with Obama seems old news as well.
But, I'm not going to sit here like I know more about that than I do.
You could be right.

 

Please explain. Are you implying that I am ignoring an inappropriate relationship that Palin has had? I would be quite sure that if there was one, some of the folks here would have brought it to our attention.

What I meant by Rezko and Wright being old news is that they were brought up during the primaries, Ayers was not. Until a few days ago, most people probably did not know there was a connection between Obama and Ayers.

 

I've not read your feelings on Palin so I maybe being unfair here, but you seem to be keen to throw around that Ayers was a "Terrorist" and this some how tarnishes Obama (arn't we all allowed redemption ? )
Ramping that up to the enth degree.
But then you seem to be ignoring Palins morally questionable behaviour (do I need to post a picture of a bear and a helicopter?)

Fair enough.

 

Most of the statements I have made here were balanced responses to unfair allegations, exaggerations, or outright lies. I have also made similar responses to allegations about Obama (though they are not very prevalent here). My position on Palin is that she is not qualified to be Vice President, or obviously President for that matter.

I am keen to throw around that Ayers was a terrorist, because he is. And it does tarnish Obama. Who Obama chooses to associate with and who he chooses to accept political donations from is very relevant in my opinion. Whether Ayers is currently a professor, or whether he was acquited of charges does not negate the fact that he used lethal terrorist acts against the US government and its citizens to make a political statement. This is unacceptable. Some argue that this was a long time ago. As late as 2004 he publicly stated that he showed no remorse for his actions. This is not a man that who is changed his radical views.

I would like you to post any information that you have that you would like me to comment on. From what I have seen, whether it be liberals, animal rights activists, or people that just plain hate Palin, most like to use sensationalized phrases and misleading photos to dramatize the statement they are trying to make.

Before one makes judgements on the topics of wolves, bears, caribou, etc.. I would like them to at least have SOME knowledge on who makes the decisions to thin predator population (Department of Fish and Game), why predator populations are thinned, and what are the standard practices for thinning these populations (aerial hunting).

I often find myself defending Palin, and it is not because I think that she is everything that the GOP has played her up to be, it is because she is often unfairly targeted. And most of the time the people that condemn her activities, often know little about the truth of the situation. Granted this can be said about all candidate, but have I criticized Obama about anything that isn't true? Have I defended him when what was being said about him was true? I don't believe that I have. I try to take an objective look at everything, and if there is a valid arguement, I will acknowledge it no matter who the target is.

 

Fair enough.

Regarding Ayers maybe a comparison is in order:
Is Nelson Mandela STILL a terrorist?
Do you think he still feels the same way he did back in the 50 and 60s?
Isn't Mandela still on the U.S. terrorist watch list?
Perhaps I need to read what Ayers said in (or upto) 2004 and see how reflective it is.
Now, I don't know much about this guy or the relationship to be honest.
Only what I have read in the last few days.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HfnUXP2Z3sQ&NR=1
I know one thing, the way Palin talked about it was just wrong.

Don't you think you are doing the same? (just a querstion)

First thing, I think my bear comment is what is known as a "cheap shot".
All I am actually basing my dislike for her is how she comes across:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=165dmHZga1I

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kQmnRrdeXXA&NR=1

What does Palins comment filter down as?
Obama is a Terrorist lover and is a Terrorist himself...
Perhaps not buy you but some blowhards in America (including I imagine Palin.)

Nothing Palin had said is false either.
It is the inferences she makes.
I'm not quite sure what inferences you are making.
Hopefuly just Obama's choice in friends, nothing more.

 

well in all due respect i think hed get farther with honesty but then again if he was honest hed have nothing to say xD

 

I don't believe that Mandela is on the US terrorist watchlist, but I could be wrong. I know he was allowed into the US a couple of years ago. The situation in South Africa during apartheid was much more complex than the Vietnam protests ever were. South Africans blacks were stripped of their rights, detention without trial, torture, murder, etc... I have posted several cited quotes by Ayers, but it should not be difficult to find out more information should you choose.

Ayers is by definition a terrorist, so that is what I refer to him as. I don't feel the need to encite emotion by posting a picture of what a womans body looks like when a nailbomb explodes two feet away from it. I feel there are ways to make a point using facts, and there are ways to influence people emotionally through graphic representation. Example: Talking about thinning the wolf population, versus talking about slaughtering wolves and posting a picture of a dead bloody wolf. Natural instinct is to feel sorry for the dead animal, without understanding why this animal was put down in the first place. I don't sugarcoat, but I don't distract an argument with emotion either. Another example is when people debate abortion. I don't feel it is right to show pictures of aborted fetuses, as it incites emotion and distracts from the debate as to the necessity of the act. Make sense?

I have never labeled Obama as a terrorist, or a terrorist lover/sympathizer. My reference is that he has inappropriate relationships with questionable people. That said, I take what Palin said literally. Obama pals around with terrorists (Ayers and Dohrn). My interpretation of this is that he associates with these people. He does. Through social gatherings as well as accepting political contributions.

I wouldn't expect Palin to sugarcoat anymore than I would expect Obama to sugarcoat the Keating reference. This is politics.

I have repeated myself several times throughout these posts regarding my inferences. Again, Obama chooses to have inappropriate relationships with questionable individuals and it is important to know who these people are and what the relationships are. Some of these people are known terrorists. Others are convicted felons, political fixers, money launderers, religious extremists, racists, repressive leaders, corrupt businessmen, etc... These are people he has associated with on political, business, and personal terms, supported their campaign efforts, and accepted money from.

 

I think what McCain and Palin want is to sweep up the American public to such an extent that the assassination of Obama is explicit and acceptable..

Much as we bought into the WMD in Iraq. But they can't prove that anymore than Bush proved the crap about Iraq. But we are trillions in debt now, Sadaam was brutally killed, hundreds of thousands of casualties have been killed. Bin Laden is still out there rearing his head this election period.

I am not buying into it.

 

Wow!:icon_bs:

 

Exactly. I am amazed at what the American public allows. We are supposed to fear Putin's head floating over Alaska, and believe that Sarah can protect us.

I for one am not buying it any longer.

 

No Shit, He makes this same claim in another thread, and when asked to back it up he runs off just start it all over again in another thread.

 

1 July 2008
US President George W Bush has signed a bill removing Nelson Mandela and South African leaders from the US terror watch list, officials say.

A US senator said the new legislation was a step towards removing the "shame of dishonouring this great leader".

The ongoing and almost complete re-imaging of Nelson Mandela.

It does not matter it was a choice to use violence especially against individuals.

In anybodys book Nelson Mandela was party to far worse acts of terrorism than William C. Ayers.
William C. Ayers, as far as I can gather, did not commit acts of terror to any individuals.
He is not on a terrorist watchlist.
All I cound find is he blew up a statue.
One could say: "Big deal".

Now I know you are being unfair.
If you do that then I'll always think of Mr Mandela as a terrorist.
One we should not have any relationship with.

Yes.
But I do think the word "Terrorist" is being used too heavily here.

As long as you keep using the word terrorist here I don't think we are going to see eye to eye, sorry.
Thanks for claryfying what you think though.

 

Nelson Mandela was freed in 1990, now July 2008 he is officially not a terrorist. I would profess to being his friend and supporter in 1990 if that makes me a terrorist sympathizer so be it.

 

Does Sarah Palin even know who he is?

 

If you cannot diferentiate between South African apartheid and Veitnam War protesting in the United States, then yes, Nelson Mandela is a terrorist. And as a terrorist, I do not think that US government representatives should have a personal relationship with, nor accept political donations from.

Good enough for the FBI, good enough for me.

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/jan04/weather012904.htm

 

The weathermen disbanded because they grew up. We've all heard the anarchist and militant ravings of the young here on HipForums. Something these young bucks should think about. Someday someone who went to a party with them may not be eligible to run for president. Think about it, some old admiral's son may be looking at who you partied with. Beware.

 

I can.
But by definitinon both we are classing as Terrorists.
One was actually on a Terrorist watch list, till recently.
Both persons activities occured 40+ years ago.
Much water has passed under the bridge and many achievements by both have occured since.
All I am asking is why can't both men be given the opportunity for redemtion?
One clearly has.

I do hope you are not washing your hands of Mr Mandela as to keep up your protest of Ayers.
If not, you are a very harsh fellow.