Printable View
the media wasn't shy about reporting that michelle obama said 'whitey' (even though she didn't)...what good reason could they have for not making an issue of mccain saying "gook" on many occasions, and then defending his use of the word? hwo many different racist slurs does a politician have to use before it becomes a liability?
the media lay down for mccain as surely as the jumped at michelle obama's throat
Here's a test for you to try at home:
1. Catch a wild house cat outside.
2. Keep it in a cage just big enough for it to stand and turn around in.
3. Beat the cat, breaking it's arms and legs.. let it heal..
4. Refuse to feed or give the cat water until it is on the verge of death. then give it the minimal amount required to survive.
5. Find innovative ways to torture the cat on a daily or hourly basis.
Repeat steps 2-5 for 5-10 years.
Release cat in your house.. see how well that cat likes you or trusts you. The cat will avoid you at all costs, but won't hesitate to lash out at you if given the chance. :hippy:
fyi: I don't condone the abuse of animals and am not advocating it. This was just an example of the psychology involved with McCain's POW status and why he feels that way towards a group. Which is still racism; but nothing like just blindly using a racist term with no history behind you to justify your words.
Just as you jump at any politician who's mascot may be an elephant? :hippy:Quote:
Originally Posted by maladroit
I think the problem with the Ayers thing is that the McCain campaign is trying to make too much out of the connection. There just isn't much there. The notion that Obama "pals around with terrorists" is such an exageration, that you either buy it 100%, like McCain supporters seem to do, or you completely dismiss it out of hand. The truth is there is a little something there, but not much.
No one can excuse what Ayers did 40 years ago, and it would have been better if the prosecution had not blown it's case back then so the trial got thrown out. He should have served time for what he did.
Now it's 40 years in the past. Ayers may not be universally respected, considering his past, but he is certainly given a great deal of credit for the good things he has done in the past 40 years. He has enough credibility that he was asked to serve on the board of the Annenberg Project, funded by a strongly Republican family. He served on the board along with various diverse experts in education, including many prominent Republicans and Barack Obama. So I suppose if you want to say that Obama pals around with Ayers because they both served on this board, you might also have to admit that Obama pals around with the Annenbergs and a large number of prominent Chicago Republicans. And I guess those prominent Chicago Republicans also pal around with terrorists. And it makes sense too to conclude that the Annenbergs actually FUND the activities of terrorists. Perhaps Homeland Security ought to investigate the Annenbergs for their funding of terrorists!
The whole idea is stupid.
Does anyone believe in redemption? The idea that maybe someone could do something very bad, and then redeem themselves with a lifetime of good work? Apparently the Annenberg family does. Very Christian of them, if you ask me.
The idea that Obama is somehow stained by serving on the same board as Ayers is not only stupid, it is totally ineffective as a campaign strategy. No one seems to care except for those who are completely wrapped up in this election. Ordinary voters do not care. During the two weeks McCain spent hammering the topic, his poll numbers continued to drop. And from what I saw on the debate coverage on various news channels, people who watched the debate and were interviewed later felt like the Ayers topic was a waste of time, irrelevant, and confusing. It's a losing topic. With the economy burning to the ground, people look at this kind of BS and they think it is small and petty and irrelevant.
Even if it were relevant as a campaign issue, it is irrelevant to voters.
Truth. Remember when buying weed was supporting terrorism? Man, those were the days.....Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
'none are so blind as them that will not see'
i understand the psychology behind mccain's use of the word GOOK...a similar psychology exists behind some people's use of racial slurs to describe other races (for example: the vietnamese must have a racial slur for the white guys that tortured vietnamese 40 years ago)...that doesn't justify anything...in fact, that's worse than someone blindly throwing out a racist slur with no meaning behind it...mccain was fully aware of what that word meant and he used it repeatedly, and defended his use of that word
maybe black people are psychologically like abused animals with trust issues too, but that wouldn't excuse obama from calling his abusers 'crackers'...that would have knocked him out of the race for president, even if he apologized
Dude, none are so blind as they who will agree with you just because you tell them to. Please man, get over yourself. You haven't given a lick of sense in any of your posts, and quoting one line of the bible (or wherever the fuck you got it) with nothing else to follow (like information, meaning, or points) doesn't help you're argument. You are not John McCain or Sarah Palin. Just because they know how to duck and dodge the issues like champs does not mean YOU know how to. Please insert 3 coins and try again.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherbozo
Now, back to reality. I've learned something after reading a series of books. People who live away from cities (usually in rural areas) are not fond of new ideas. New information and ideas of change are not readily accepted in rural areas. I've always figured it's because the influx of information to these types of areas is slow, while in cities and what not information travels immediately. However, I've had a hard time justifying this, because nowadays everyone has a TV and is constantly bombarded by modern perception, whereas back in the day in rural areas, people only got information via people traveling through or something to that effect. Eh, not really related but was a series of thoughts in my noggin.
Dude, I don't know where you get off telling people that everything they say that disagrees with you is either retarded or crazy. A lot of yours posts are equally if not more insane than half the posts you comment on. If you're going to say something at least have some merit to back it up.
I sure hope you aren't talking about me.Quote:
Originally Posted by apocolips31