Joe the Plumber speaks out on Foreign Policy


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

Postby tandfman » Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:44 pm

kuha wrote:What's your angle, man?

Acute, of course. (I try never to be obtuse.)
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby tandfman » Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:46 pm

lonewolf wrote:One might expect such demographics would be eager to jump on Obama's socialist gravy train. And, of course, some are.

I'm surprised and disappointed to see you uttering that "socialist" crap.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby lonewolf » Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:50 pm

And I am surprised that you are surprised, tandfman if you have read any of my posts on this thread.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby trig » Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:50 pm

lonewolf wrote:
bad hammy wrote: I read in the newspaper this morning (and did not fact check) that McCain is leading in all 10 of the states nationwide with the lowest average incomes, by an average of 16 points over Obama. It boggles the mind . . .


I can see reasons why this is both puzzling and obvious.

One might expect such demographics would be eager to jump on Obama's socialist gravy train. And, of course, some are.

I do not know what those ten states are but I would guess Oklahoma, where I live, is one of them. Due my long and rather diverse history, I am in contact with people from all economic levels. My impression and surmise, confirmed by historical voting record, is that the majority in this "low income" state, in addition to being basically politically conservative, perceive Obama as an elitist, arrogant ,arugala-eater. Also, the school of hard knocks has conditioned them to not swallow untasted pie-in-the-sky promises. .


So I guess that means they don't want an "elitist" airplane pilot or surgeon.
trig
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Eugene

Postby bad hammy » Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:53 pm

tandfman wrote:
lonewolf wrote:One might expect such demographics would be eager to jump on Obama's socialist gravy train. And, of course, some are.

I'm surprised and disappointed to see you uttering that "socialist" crap.

I would have thought our friend lonewolf was immune from the Kool-Aid that the right is pouring, but I guess not . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:57 pm

trig wrote:[So I guess that means they don't want an "elitist" airplane pilot or surgeon.


I don't see the correlation, trig, . People are generally not aware of and do not care about the dietary habits of surgeons and pilots. I am just telling you what people here are not bashful about saying.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby kuha » Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:10 pm

Ah, two of the most foolish canards of a transcendentally foolish campaign : "elitism" and "socialism."

If we really want representatives who are "just like" us, why put any weight on "experience" at all? Why not just pick our president, senators, etc., by lottery? It would be sort of like mega-jury duty! Instead of being tied up in the courthouse downtown for 3 days or a week, you'd be stuck in D.C. for 4 years. Not much need for term limits, because the odds of getting "picked" twice in a row would be quite astronomical. I figure, if we eliminate all the folks under 30 years of age, currently in prison, clinically insane, convicted sex offenders, or drug addicts, then each of us would have something like a 1/175 million chance of getting called. What a "fun" roller-coaster of a political climate that would create! Wheeeeeeeee! But, hey, we'd be doing an end run around those HORRIBLE "elites," wouldn't we?!

If the elitist thing is really so horrible, I propose that we immediately close the top half of all our institutions of higher education. Trade schools are fine, as are all the schools that a guidance counseler knows are "not selective." Anything else, however, needs to be shut down immediately and turned to some useful purpose......like, say, pro football training camps, or centers for the study of NASCAR history, or museums of creation science, or....well you get the idea...ANYTHING would be an improvement over those existing incubators of "elitist" thinking...

As for "socialism"--or even more of a hoot, "Marxism"--...oh, it's just too stupid to even make fun of....
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby trig » Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:40 pm

lonewolf wrote:
trig wrote:[So I guess that means they don't want an "elitist" airplane pilot or surgeon.


I don't see the correlation, trig, . People are generally not aware of and do not care about the dietary habits of surgeons and pilots. I am just telling you what people here are not bashful about saying.


Are you saying that elitist only refers to the fact that he eats arugula?
trig
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Eugene

Postby lonewolf » Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:02 pm

bad hammy wrote:
tandfman wrote:
lonewolf wrote:One might expect such demographics would be eager to jump on Obama's socialist gravy train. And, of course, some are.

I'm surprised and disappointed to see you uttering that "socialist" crap.

I would have thought our friend lonewolf was immune from the Kool-Aid that the right is pouring, but I guess not . . .


Ya see, hammy, that is why this entire thread is a mistake. I am sure there have been a lot of mutual disappointments. I am the right and I don't see it as Kool-Aid or "crap". We were given an opportunity to speak our minds here, unfortunately for the long run IMO, and I have as much right as the majority to do so civilly.

This forum has been more tolerant of liberal than of conservative comments; which is ok, it is their game. I have heretofore refrained from deliberately esposing any political opinion. Not only because it is verboten but it is immaterial to track and field and can only make one feel good at the expense of someone else's discomfort. However, it is well nigh impossible, and some do not try, to disguise ones political leaning unless you deliberately create a false impression.

Interpretation of an issue is what it is for the individual. Half of us are probably going to be wrong and, hopefully, politicians cannot deliver half of what they promise. No matter how nicely you phrase it, when one denigrates another's opinion as idiotic, you have called them an idiot, which, while it may or may not be true, is not conducive to kumbaya.

I don't begrudge anyone their opinon. I am surprised, not at any individual's position, but at the overwhelming liberal, not always dispassionately expressed stance of this forum. To each his own.

I am forever perplexed that people observe the same sequence of events and characters and come to 180 degee different opinions. But, twas and ever shall be so.

Soon we can get back to solving track stuff..
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Marlow » Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:05 pm

Lonewolf - you are hopelessly wrong, but I still love ya, bro!!!! :D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby bad hammy » Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:09 pm

Marlow wrote:Lonewolf - you are hopelessly wrong, but I still love ya, bro!!!! :D

Agreed!
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gm » Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:10 pm

Lonewolf, I agree 100%.
gm
 
Posts: 4560
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Postby lonewolf » Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:13 pm

trig wrote:Are you saying that elitist only refers to the fact that he eats arugula?


No, trig, I have lots more adjectives in my arsenal but I thought that particular incident made my point.

If you live in an arugula consuming environment, you have no idea how that comment was received out here in the hinterlands.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby kuha » Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:25 pm

lonewolf wrote:Ya see, hammy, that is why this entire thread is a mistake. I am sure there have been a lot of mutual disappointments. I am the right and I don't see it as Kool-Aid or "crap". We were given an opportunity to speak our minds here, unfortunately for the long run IMO, and I have as much right as the majority to do so civilly.

This forum has been more tolerant of liberal than of conservative comments; which is ok, it is their game. I have heretofore refrained from deliberately esposing any political opinion. Not only because it is verboten but it is immaterial to track and field and can only make one feel good at the expense of someone else's discomfort. However, it is well nigh impossible, and some do not try, to disguise ones political leaning unless you deliberately create a false impression.

Interpretation of an issue is what it is for the individual. Half of us are probably going to be wrong and, hopefully, politicians cannot deliver half of what they promise. No matter how nicely you phrase it, when one denigrates another's opinion as idiotic, you have called them an idiot, which, while it may or may not be true, is not conducive to kumbaya.

I don't begrudge anyone their opinon. I am surprised, not at any individual's position, but at the overwhelming liberal, not always dispassionately expressed stance of this forum. To each his own.

I am forever perplexed that people observe the same sequence of events and characters and come to 180 degee different opinions. But, twas and ever shall be so.


I appreciate lonewolf's sentiments here (even thought I clearly don't agree with his positions) and, as I've stated before, he is a gentleman. If there will be disagreements (and there must be) the point is to attack the message, not the messenger. This whole board is proof that people care deeply about these issues and that there can never be anything approaching full accord. As much as we value the idea of intelligent, spirited conversation, it's amazing how rarely anyone's core views or ideas are ever changed as a result.
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby lonewolf » Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:25 pm

kuha wrote: Ah, two of the most foolish canards of a transcendentally foolish campaign : "elitism" and "socialism." ..


kuha, I agree McCain has run an excruciatingly frustrating, inept campaign. However, what you dismiss as "canards" are truths to others and are not foolish when enough people agree with them. We shall find out Tuesday.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby lonewolf » Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:29 pm

kuha wrote:[ This whole board is proof that people care deeply about these issues and that there can never be anything approaching full accord. As much as we value the idea of intelligent, spirited conversation, it's amazing how rarely anyone's core views or ideas are ever changed as a result.


A frequent sermon topic of mine. :)
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby kuha » Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:32 pm

lonewolf wrote:
kuha wrote: Ah, two of the most foolish canards of a transcendentally foolish campaign : "elitism" and "socialism." ..


kuha, I agree McCain has run an excruciatingly frustrating, inept campaign. However, what you dismiss as "canards" are truths to others and are not foolish when enough people agree with them. We shall find out Tuesday.


I would suggest that you are describing "beliefs" rather than truths. To be at all useful, truths have to reflect SOME facet of objective, real-world experience. Beliefs don't--and, instead of reflecting reality, they may function as lenses to distort reality (in ways that we find useful or comforting). As such, they MUST be open to challenge and questioning. To do any less would be to chuck our rational faculties right out the window.
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby SQUACKEE » Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:38 pm

bad hammy wrote:
Marlow wrote:Lonewolf - you are hopelessly wrong, but I still love ya, bro!!!! :D

Agreed!


You have to admit its a damn shame that Lonewolf lived all those years and the end result of a life well lived is that he is hopelessly wrong.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:45 pm

lonewolf wrote:Ya see, hammy, that is why this entire thread is a mistake. I am sure there have been a lot of mutual disappointments. I am the right and I don't see it as Kool-Aid or "crap". We were given an opportunity to speak our minds here, unfortunately for the long run IMO, and I have as much right as the majority to do so civilly.

This forum has been more tolerant of liberal than of conservative comments; which is ok, it is their game. I have heretofore refrained from deliberately esposing any political opinion. Not only because it is verboten but it is immaterial to track and field and can only make one feel good at the expense of someone else's discomfort. However, it is well nigh impossible, and some do not try, to disguise ones political leaning unless you deliberately create a false impression.

Interpretation of an issue is what it is for the individual. Half of us are probably going to be wrong and, hopefully, politicians cannot deliver half of what they promise. No matter how nicely you phrase it, when one denigrates another's opinion as idiotic, you have called them an idiot, which, while it may or may not be true, is not conducive to kumbaya.

I don't begrudge anyone their opinon. I am surprised, not at any individual's position, but at the overwhelming liberal, not always dispassionately expressed stance of this forum. To each his own.

I am forever perplexed that people observe the same sequence of events and characters and come to 180 degee different opinions. But, twas and ever shall be so.

Soon we can get back to solving track stuff..

Amen lonewolf! I couldn't have said it better myself. I have two co-workers that are at the extreme opposite ends of the political spectrum, and it still amazes me that both of them can watch a political show like "Meet The Press", but when they recap what they saw, you'd think that they must have watched two different episodes.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:50 pm

kuha wrote:[
I would suggest that you are describing "beliefs" rather than truths. .


Dang, kuha, do I have to parse every word? Put "truths" in quotation marks if it makes you feel better. :)
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:53 pm

trig wrote:
lonewolf wrote:
trig wrote:[So I guess that means they don't want an "elitist" airplane pilot or surgeon.


I don't see the correlation, trig, . People are generally not aware of and do not care about the dietary habits of surgeons and pilots. I am just telling you what people here are not bashful about saying.


Are you saying that elitist only refers to the fact that he eats arugula?

A while back, Bill Maher had an excellent take on right-wingers who belittle elitists.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby kuha » Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:58 pm

lonewolf wrote:
kuha wrote:[
I would suggest that you are describing "beliefs" rather than truths. .


Dang, kuha, do I have to parse every word? Put "truths" in quotation marks if it makes you feel better. :)


Gotcha. Yes, that does help considerably.
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby lonewolf » Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:02 pm

SQUACKEE wrote:
bad hammy wrote:
Marlow wrote:Lonewolf - you are hopelessly wrong, but I still love ya, bro!!!! :D

Agreed!


You have to admit its a damn shame that Lonewolf lived all those years and the end result of a life well lived is that he is hopelessly wrong.


Squak, I have found a perfect antidote for being wrong all my life. I just fill up with expensive gasoline, drive out to a lease and watch an oil well pump. Very soothing and the smell of crude clears my sinuses. :D
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby tandfman » Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:03 pm

lonewolf wrote:And I am surprised that you are surprised, tandfman if you have read any of my posts on this thread.

I know that you support McCain. That does not trouble me. I have friends and relatives who are doing the same. But I think it's possible to support McCain and subscribe generally to the platform of the Republican party without accusing Obama of being a socialist, which he is not. And I am surpised and disappointed that you have fallen for that line.

We're talking about details of the tax code and of government programs that are well established in this country. Changing some of those details can benefit some people more than others. The sum of what Obama is proposing does not make him a socialist and the adoption of every plank in his party's platform would not make this a socialist country. It was not a socialist country under Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, or Clinton and it will not be one under Obama. The use of that inflammatory word in this context does not reflect well on whoever utters it, whether it be Senator McCain, Governor Palin, or you.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby lonewolf » Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:16 pm

I was beginning to think I did not know the meaning of "elitist " but I consulted Mr Webster and, nope, I was correct. I think what many are overlooking here is, I am talking about is perception and perception is reality when you enter the voting booth.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby AthleticsInBritain » Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:16 pm

To go a little off topic, I was wondering what on earth you in the US define as 'socialist'. Because the definition doesn't seem to be carrying across the Atlantic to where the concept was invented!

Having lived under a real socialist government in Britain, as well as being pretty well-acquainted with liberals, liberal democrats, social democrats, labour party, trade unionists, socialists, Trotskyites, Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists and general communists of the European variety I can quite categorically assure you none of them recognise or think of Obama or the Democrat Party as "socialist" in any way, shape or form.
AthleticsInBritain
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:01 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Postby trig » Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:18 pm

I know that you support McCain. That does not trouble me. I have friends and relatives who are doing the same. But I think it's possible to support McCain and subscribe generally to the platform of the Republican party without accusing Obama of being a socialist, which he is not. And I am surpised and disappointed that you have fallen for that line.


I agree. I have no trouble with how people vote if they have thought about it and have a "good" reason. But not to vote for someone because they eat a certain food is troublesome.
trig
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Eugene

Postby kuha » Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:22 pm

AthleticsInBritain wrote:To go a little off topic, I was wondering what on earth you in the US define as 'socialist'. Because the definition doesn't seem to be carrying across the Atlantic to where the concept was invented!

Having lived under a real socialist government in Britain, as well as being pretty well-acquainted with liberals, liberal democrats, social democrats, labour party, trade unionists, socialists, Trotskyites, Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists and general communists of the European variety I can quite categorically assure you none of them recognise or think of Obama or the Democrat Party as "socialist" in any way, shape or form.


Exactly. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of "real, existing" socialism--either now or historically--would split a gut laughing at the idea that any major-party US candidate would in any way fit that bill. To the degree that the use of this term is a result of "perceptions," then we can rightly criticize those perceptions as, to be kind, rather eccentric.
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby bad hammy » Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:27 pm

AthleticsInBritain wrote:To go a little off topic, I was wondering what on earth you in the US define as 'socialist'. Because the definition doesn't seem to be carrying across the Atlantic to where the concept was invented!

Having lived under a real socialist government in Britain, as well as being pretty well-acquainted with liberals, liberal democrats, social democrats, labour party, trade unionists, socialists, Trotskyites, Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists and general communists of the European variety I can quite categorically assure you none of them recognise or think of Obama or the Democrat Party as "socialist" in any way, shape or form.

We don't have socialists in any numbers at all. We just have folks on the right using bogeyman scare tactics attempting to characterize Obama as a socialist to hopefully get some brain-dead voters (they would have to be brain-dead to be fooled by such nonsense) to vote for McCain.

I did see the leader of the official US Socialist party on The Daily Show the other night. He was mad at the far right for insinuating that Obama was anything close to being a socialist. He considered Obama to be way, way too conservative to be a socialist.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:33 pm

tandfman wrote:[ I know that you support McCain.
The use of that inflammatory word (socialist) in this context does not reflect well on whoever utters it, whether it be Senator McCain, Governor Palin, or you.


As I have admitted elsewhere, I support McCain only because he is my only choice this time around.


I am sorry if the word "socialist" offends you but definitions 1 and 3 in Webster pretty well describe my interpretation and understand of what is happening here.
Besides, I have already forfeited any chance in the popularity contest so I am not too concerned about my reflection.. :)
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby gm » Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:34 pm

It's a very mild form of creeping socialism at best, but I feel the same sense of wonder/revulsion when I hear lefties in the US call their opponents fascists.
gm
 
Posts: 4560
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:37 pm

One of the more bogus criticisms of Obama is his associations, especially when you consider that McCain has associations with people that are every bit as controversial as Obama's.
    Tony Rezko = Charles Keating
    Jeremiah Wright = John Hagee
    Michael Pfleger = Rod Parsely
    Bill Ayers = Richard Quinn
    Rashid Khalidi = Anthony Bouscaren

This selective outrage amazes me. :?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby kuha » Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:38 pm

bad hammy wrote:
AthleticsInBritain wrote:To go a little off topic, I was wondering what on earth you in the US define as 'socialist'. Because the definition doesn't seem to be carrying across the Atlantic to where the concept was invented!

Having lived under a real socialist government in Britain, as well as being pretty well-acquainted with liberals, liberal democrats, social democrats, labour party, trade unionists, socialists, Trotskyites, Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists and general communists of the European variety I can quite categorically assure you none of them recognise or think of Obama or the Democrat Party as "socialist" in any way, shape or form.

We don't have socialists in any numbers at all. We just have folks on the right using bogeyman scare tactics attempting to characterize Obama as a socialist to hopefully get some brain-dead voters (they would have to be brain-dead to be fooled by such nonsense) to vote for McCain.

I did see the leader of the official US Socialist party on The Daily Show the other night. He was mad at the far right for insinuating that Obama was anything close to being a socialist. He considered Obama to be way, way too conservative to be a socialist.


Exactly. There actually ARE left-wing political radicals in this country, but we treat them like they are flat-earthers. Almost no one knows their names, and they struggle to get 1% of the vote. And they would uniformly reject Obama as hopelessly "mainstream," "corporate," etc., etc.
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby kuha » Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:42 pm

gm wrote:It's a very mild form of creeping socialism at best, but I feel the same sense of wonder/revulsion when I hear lefties in the US call their opponents fascists.


Does anyone do that anymore? I was in England in 1979 and (in the crowd I was associating with) Thatcher was routinely called a "fascist"--with great gusto and repeatedly. I remember a little bit of that with Reagan...but it was hard to hear it without laughing, at least a bit. Has anyone said that about Bush II? Bush and Cheney are guilty of many things, but anything ressembling old-fashioned "fascism"? I don't think so...
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby lonewolf » Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:43 pm

trig wrote: I have no trouble with how people vote if they have thought about it and have a "good" reason. But not to vote for someone because they eat a certain food is troublesome.


Trig, trig, trig, I am having trouble fending off all these slings and arrows.
I don't know why you are hung up on arugula. Did you miss my explanation that this is just an example of an incident that got huffaws from chicken-fried steak eaters?

Heck, I didn't even know what arugula was until Obama commented on the price of it. Relax, his consumption of arugula does not enter into my assessment of his candidacy.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby kuha » Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:45 pm

If it's guffaws [or huffaws??] you're after, NOTHING can beat a candidate who doesn't know how many houses they own!!

Ho-HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby lonewolf » Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:57 pm

kuha wrote:If it's guffaws [or huffaws??] you're after, NOTHING can beat a candidate who doesn't know how many houses they own!! []!


You are right about the guffaws. Maybe. I don't know if is either is a word and I am wearing out my Websters.
I don't know why it is impossible to believe someone doesn't know how many houses his extended family owns. Heck, I am not even sure who owns the house my ex lives in that I paid for and maintain. :) :? :(
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:27 pm

Uh oh! :!: Lonewolf, it seems that your guy may have outsmarted himself this time.
The latest guilt-by-association target that the McCain campaign is using to hit Barack Obama could carry some collateral damage for its own candidate.....

the McCain campaign is demanding that the Los Angeles Times release video in its possession of a party attended by Barack Obama and Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi.....

The McCain camp gambit comes after conservative writers have repeatedly pressed for media outlets to write about the rather tenuous connections between Obama and Khalidi, an outspoken advocate for Palestinian rights.....

In regards to Khalidi, however, the guilt-by-association game burns John McCain as well. During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars. A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/2 ... 38606.html
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:39 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Uh oh! :!: Lonewolf, it seems that your guy may have outsmarted himself this time. l


Have I failed to mention that McCain is "my guy" by default only as the best of two depressingly weak choices ? His resume is rife with "stuff" I do not agree with.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Daisy » Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:50 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Uh oh! :!: Lonewolf, it seems that your guy may have outsmarted himself this time.
A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/2 ... 38606.html


This was obviously before he was recognised as a bad guy. When Obama met him he was far badder. This will not help deflect Obama's obvious attempts at fraternizing with terrorists.
Last edited by Daisy on Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest