Stephanopoulos failed to confront McCain with controversial Coburn remark that Obama cited when questioned about Ayers
SUMMARY: On This Week, Sen. John McCain asserted that Sen. Barack Obama's reference to Sen. Tom Coburn when Obama was asked about William Ayers was an "incredible statement" that "borders on outrageous." However, at no point during the exchange did George Stephanopoulos point out the actual comments Coburn made that elicited Obama's reference to Coburn, much less confront McCain with the issue of whether he agreed with Coburn's comments.
During an interview with host George Stephanopoulos on the April 20 edition of ABC's This Week, Sen. John McCain asserted that Sen. Barack Obama's reference to Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) when Obama was asked at the April 16 Democratic presidential debate about former Weather Underground Organization member William Ayers was an "incredible statement" that "borders on outrageous." But at no point during the exchange did Stephanopoulos point out the actual comments Coburn made that elicited Obama's reference to Coburn, much less confront McCain with the issue of whether he agreed with Coburn's comments. Specifically, Coburn reportedly told the Associated Press in July 2004, "I favor the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life." An April 21 New York Times article also did not mention Coburn's remarks, despite reporting that McCain said on This Week: "Then, the worst thing of all, that, I think, really indicates Senator Obama's attitude, is he had the incredible statement that he compared Mr. Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, with Senator Tom Coburn, Senator Coburn, a physician who goes to Oklahoma on the weekends and brings babies into life."
When asked about his ties to Ayers during the April 16 debate, which Stephanopoulos co-moderated, Obama stated, "The fact is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who, during his campaign, once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions. Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements?"
According to a July 19, 2004, post on National Journal's The Hotline blog (via Nexis), Coburn subsequently told The Oklahoman:
My contention for the death penalty is, if you intentionally take innocent life, you ought to be open to the death penalty. That's what abortionists do. Do I think abortionists should be put to death right now? No. You can't do it. [Abortion] is legal. I don't think it should be legal.
From the April 20 edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Your allies are signaling that patriotism is going to be an issue in the fall. Here is Karl Rove in Gentleman's Quarterly magazine. He said, "There are Democrats, particularly blue-collar Democrats, who defect to McCain because they see McCain as a patriotic figure and they see Obama as an elitist who's looking down his nose at 'em, which he is." Do you have any doubt that Barack Obama shares your sense of patriotism?
McCAIN: I'm sure he's very patriotic, but his relationship with Mr. Ayers is open to question. And that --
STEPHANOPOULOS: Why?
McCAIN: Because, if you're going to associate and have as a friend and serve on a board and have a guy kick off your campaign that says he's unrepentant, that he wished he'd bombed more. And then, the worst thing of all, that I think really indicates Senator Obama's attitude, is he had the incredible statement that he compared Mr. Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist -- an unrepentant terrorist, with Senator Tom Coburn. Senator Coburn, a physician who goes to Oklahoma on the weekends and brings babies into life.
Comparing those two, I mean, that's not -- that's an attitude, frankly, that certainly isn't in keeping with the overall attitude of the American people --
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama said --
McCAIN: -- and it's very insulting to a great man, a great doctor, a great humanitarian. To compare him with a guy who says in -- after 2001, I wish we had bombed more? I had a reconciliation with the anti-war movement. One of the great experiences of my life was to get to know and love David Ifshin. I had a reconciliation with the Vietnamese, when we normalized relations. But how can you countenance someone who was engaged in bombings, which could have or did kill innocent people?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama says he was eight years old when that was happening.
McCAIN: But he became friends with him and spent time with him, while the guy was unrepentant over his activities as a member of a terrorist organization, the Weathermen. And then to compare him with Dr. Tom Coburn who spends so much of his life bringing babies into this world -- that in my view is really -- it borders on outrageous.
STEPHANOPOULOS: He also pointed out that he and Mr. Ayers have a very loose relationship. They live in the same neighborhood; there was an organizing meeting many, many years ago, he says, in his house and he says, frankly, I don't agree with these comments that Mr. Ayers made.
McCAIN: Doesn't agree with them? Does he condemn them? Does he -- would he condemn someone who says that they're unrepentant and wished that they had bombed more, and compare him to a doctor, one of the great humanitarian, in my view, one of the greatest spokesperson for the rights of the unborn in America?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you say he should condemn these comments.
McCAIN: Sure.
STEPHANOPOULOS: A lot of Senator Obama's allies and others say that you should condemn the comments of Reverend John Hagee, an evangelical pastor.
McCAIN: Oh, I do. And I did. I said that any comments that he made about the Catholic Church, I strongly condemn, of course.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet, you solicited and accepted his endorsement.
McCAIN: Yes, indeed, I did. And I condemned the comments that he made concerning the Catholic Church.
From the April 21 New York Times article:
Mr. Obama was also the target of attacks from Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, who highlighted Mr. Obama's past relationship with William Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground.
"If you're going to associate and have as a friend and serve on a board and have a guy kick off your campaign that says he's unrepentant, that he wished bombed more," Mr. McCain said on "This Week" on ABC. "Then, the worst thing of all, that, I think, really indicates Senator Obama's attitude, is he had the incredible statement that he compared Mr. Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, with Senator Tom Coburn, Senator Coburn, a physician who goes to Oklahoma on the weekends and brings babies into life -- comparing those two -- I mean, that's not -- that's an attitude, frankly, that certainly isn't in keeping with the overall attitude."
Did anyone here read "All Too Human?".
I did and as I remember it Steph had a much better relationship with Bill than with Hillary.
Now he is a "media whore(if I can say that here)" for ABC News.
Some Obama supporters felt his debate performance was pro-Hillary. I disagree totally and this shows where his sympathies of his present corporate master lies.
When I read what John McCain says or listen to him talk, I hear the same confusion and scattering of thoughts that my grandfather exhibited in the early stages of the Alzheimer's disease that eventually killed him.
Bottom line? I think John McCain is too old for the office he's seeking.
I think McCain was right on target. Obama insulted Colburn by suggesting he is similar to Ayers. Obama is showing his true radical left colors by attempting to equate the two.
Obama is proving that you can fool some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
AA that smacks of paranoia, especially since Obama and Coburn are, at least as Obama has stated, "good friends." If that's true and Coburn has confirmed it, I don't know.
So you think Obama's a radical leftist? Tell me, what about him is radical left?
I thought he was an "elitist"...Sorry, that was last week. Seems to change day-to-day.
Why are the Cons so afraid of Obama? His chances of beating McCain may be a key point.
That is funny! Elitist but funny. :-)
Anyone else notice how quick conservatives are to pin the "elitist" term on liberals? Is this because they realize that they are inferior to liberals???
McCain seemed shocked that Obama would dare compare Ayers to a doctor, as if doctors are somehow above reproach.
It seems to me that McCain is the elitist.
Last week, John Stewart spoke about being elitist.
Basically, he said, "What's wrong with being an elitist? Remember the real definition of the word. We want our president to be an elitist. We want to choose the cream of the crop to be the leader of the free world - well, we should want to choose the best (an elite individual?) for the job.
Sorry, but electing some person just because they are just like you and I - well, that's just bull. We did it, TWICE. Look what it got us. As Mr. Stewart said, "Sorry, but I want someone smarter than I as president".
The right-wing has been playing air hockey with the English language for over 25 years. It's about time we start looking at the real meaning of words, instead of what the media wants us to believe the definition is.
DB,
It is just like I said. If Obama cannot tell the difference between Ayers and Colburn, he's out there. But what I am saying is no secret. Obama's association and defense of Ayers and his association with Wright prove it. You can see him backpeddling all the time to try to minimize these associations.
I think Obama is an elitist and radical leftist. His unguarded comments and history back that up. You are free to disagree.
AA, did you look at the transcript of the debate or watch the debate? This wasn't a case of Obama conflating Ayers with Colburn. It was Obama conflating the "idea" that people who he knows personally and may have a relationship of some sort both made radical statements. He didn't say the statements were the same. Just that both had made radical statements and they were not HIS views. And the fact that he has some sort of relationship doesn't mean he agrees with everything they say.
You seem to have a fundamental inability to see nuances that frankly aren't that difficult to discern. Please look at the transcript offered by MMFA above before you comment further.
Julia,
It seems to me you are conveniently ignoring the fact that Ayers is a terrorist and set off bombs around the United States and has a relationship with Obama. So on the one hand we are comparing a known, unrepentant terrorist who wishes he'd set off more bombs with a doctor and Senator who believes in the rule of law and the sanctity of life.
I realize that Obama wants you to think he's talking simply about ideas so you'll forget the truth about Ayers.
Obama can say what he wants, I believe his attempt at comparing Ayers and Coburn was shameful and deceitful.
You DIDNT? He said this:
"I favor the death penalty for abortionists and...
Last I looked abortion was legal. He says he favors the death penalty for abortionists which any way you look at it means he IS advocating the death penalty for a procedure that IS legal.
AA,
JuliaJayne correct. Obama never compared the two MEN on a personal level. Why do you insist on putting forth that idea when it is obvious that is not what happenned?
Julia,
I get that you are trying to steer the discussion to safer ground. I agree that Obama is not responsible for other people's words.
What I find telling is Obama's relationships with an admitted terrorist and his pastor. I also take him at his word, when he thought he was off record, rationalizing his lack of success with an elitist and condescending view of small town Midwesterners. Those relationships and his words speak volumes to me.
You are judging Obama on a loose association with someone. It doesn't matter who that someone is. You first start off saying you don't judge him then turn around and say you do judge him. You can't have it both ways. And you are the one who is taking this to a safer ground for you by bringing up the "bitter" remark. Instead of just judging sound cuts, why not seek to try to understand what he was actually saying. I know, you're too intellectually lazy and dishonest.
It's too bad that facts have a liberal bias.
Much of the controversy about him is connected with his interview with the New York Times about his book which opens with his statements, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." When asked he would "do it all again," Ayers replied, "I don't want to discount the possibility." Ayers wrote a Letter to the Editor of the New York Times on September 15, 4 days later, describing the interview as: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion." He has explained multiple times that by "no regrets" he meant that he didn't regret his efforts to oppose the Vietnam War, and that "we didn't do enough" meant that efforts to stop the war were obviously inadequate as it dragged on for a decade; the two statements were not intended to elide into a wish they had set more bombs.
http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/clarifying-the-facts-a-letter-to-the-new-york-times-9-15-2001/
http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/episodic-notoriety-fact-and-fantasy/
http://billayers.wordpress.com/category/politics/
It seems to me you are conveniently ignoring the fact that Ayers is a terrorist ...
WAS a terrorist, AA - WAS. Seems to me there's a lot of stuff you conveniently ignore every day.
You seem to have a fundamental inability to see nuances that frankly aren't that difficult to discern.
A hallmark characteristic of a conservative.....
I stated that it is Obama's inability to see the difference between Ayers and Coburn that puts him out there on the left. Apparently he saw nothing wrong with Wright's anti-American comments over the years.
My opinion is that if you think that Ayers and Coburn are similar and if you think Wright is not anti-American, then you are on the left.
ps. I don't know why some of you seem so upset by this. After only two years in the Senate he already scores as the most liberal in the Senate. Here's a partial sample of Obama's voting record as cited by Lawrence Kudrow over a year ago:
Behind the Obama story is a very liberal left voting record. . Here are some key votes and positions from Obama:
· Voted against extending the Bush tax cuts on capital gains and dividends.
· Voted against permanently repealing the Death Tax. (Called the cuts a "Paris Hilton" tax break for "billionaire heirs and heiresses") · Voted against CAFTA.
· Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25.
· Opposed the lifting of $0.54 per gallon tariff on cheaper Brazillian ethanol. Said, "ethanol imports are neither necessary nor a practical response to current gasoline prices."
· Voted against the bankruptcy abuse bill.
· Opposes privatizing Social Security
· Voted against drilling in ANWR.
· Voted against confirmation of Sam Alito AND John Roberts as chief justice.
· Voted against extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision.
· Opposed any bans on partial birth abortions.
Me- You may be in favor of all these positions. I have no argument with that, but in my opinion it puts Obama out on the far left.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/03/mirror_mirror_on_the_wall_whos.htmlI agree that a lot of the country does agree with some of those voting postions. I would put them on the left too. Obviously it doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to that conclusion. I am of the opinion that Obama is much further to the left than that. Since I have stated my reasons elsewhere I won't bore you with them here again.
Umm, if a majority of the country agrees with those policy positions that you listed, that makes it a majority of people that agree with them. This also includes, right, left, middle, and other categories of political affiliations.
The things you listed, were almost universally accepted by the vast MAJORITY of people in this country, and you called Obama radical left, and then went back to call him a leftist, and left out the radical. Can we go for a trifecta and call him a populist as well?
I disagree that those positions were almost universally accepted by the country.
I would say that Obama is a populist as far as the Democratic Party nomination is concerned. He is attempting to knock off the established elites candidate for the nomination. (Col. that would be Hillary.) So in that context, I would agree.
I do believe Obama has an elitist notion of what the populace really believes. Most of his support outside of African Americans comes from the liberal elites in academia and high income. Obama demonstrated his elitism by his putdown of small town Midwesterners. I also believe Obama is a radical leftist.. but we've been down that road. We'll see how he fares if he is nominated.
elite elite elite elite elite elite elite
Jeezus, when are you folks going to quit pushing this bs?
Obama demonstrated his elitism by his putdown of small town Midwesterners
OK, AA, for the last time, and maybe the lucky time this FACT will get through your thick skull.
Obama wasn't putting down anyone. He was stating a fact that people in rural and small town America become "bitter" and vote against their best interests in dire economic times because the repubs frame the debate (with overwhelming aid from the MSM) that the radical lefties are going to take away your guns, your church, raise your taxes, and murder all the babies - and therefore these people tend to "cling" to these things out of a MANUFACTURED, IRRATIONAL FEAR.
So I agree with the earlier poster. That the only people who believe this tripe are McCain supporters because he is creaming the Dem's in the idiot, senile, and religious-freak voting blocks.
Foghornleghorn,
For the life of me I can't understand why that is so hard to comprehend for some. Blinded by partisanship is my guess.
My favorite (and most hated) talking point was that Kerry flip-flopped on voting for the war. He didn't help himself by saying he voted for the war before he voted against it.
But anyone with a brain could understand Kerry's thinking - he wanted to actually PAY FOR THE WAR. Bush wants our grandchildren to still be paying for it by simply putting it on the Pentagon credit card.
Fog,
It's simply a matter of taking what Obama said at face value. You may interpret it as you wish. I do not see in Obama's orginal words why your interpretation is closer to what he meant than what he actually said.
Our language is one of the most nuanced of all languages. Most people, when speaking or listening to, their native tongue, will be able to understand the subtle nuances, phrasing and context in which statements are made.
I'm close to giving up on you AA, so are many others here.
There is no more give and take with you, just labeling and blanket statements. We understand that you'll never agree with us, ever. We don't expect you to. But please let's have more dialogue and less dogma.
Sorry, but polling numbers said that the vast majority of Americans agreed with those positions voted on and taken by Obama. You can believe in what you want, as in your own opinion, but alas, you can't hide what the truth was and is.
The very fact that most people hold very liberal beliefs, they just don't realize it, because for the most part, liberal has been defined as a dirty word and it is used to tar people as if it is a bad thing, you do it yourself here on many different instances.
Thing is, most folks in this country are liberals, they just either don't know it, or just don't recognize it.
WOW, AA you have a ton of nerve calling a man who fought in Vietnam as a Marine as anti-American! He put his very life on the line while you were comfortably getting your education. Just because he speaks out about this country does not make him anti-American especially with all the work he does with Americans that seem to fall through the cracks.
Since Wright is "anti-American" what do you do that makes you "pro-American?"
fried,
It's his anti-American statements that labels him, not me.
Yes, Wright was a Marine and no doubt a good man.
ps. Just for argument's sake, Benedict Arnold was veteran and a war hero. Timothy McVeigh also served in the military. So while I honor and respect those who do server their country, it does not prove your point that they cannot later do something or say something that is anti-American.
If you want to argue that proclaiming repeatedly "GD America" from the pulpit or calling the U.S, "..the U.S. of KKKA" is pro-American, then we simply disagree.
AA,
I was curious as to what you do to make America a better place, AA. Reverend Wright does plenty for the poor in this country. Have you ever heard the total context of the remarks you loathe?
Also, the examples of McVeigh and Arnold are insulting to anyone who has ever spoken out against America. McVeigh killed people and Arnold openly betrayed the country. Wright has made sermons. I would be willing to bet that Wright has done more to make this country a better place than you have. Does that make you anti-American? No. But, it sure doesn't make Wright that way either.
So by AA's standards having common sense makes you a liberal? Got it.
Another reason I'm proud to be called a liberal. Liberals move society forward - conservatives either halt progress or move backward.
It depends on your definition of liberal. There are many out there. I consider myself a classic liberal.
I find it interesting that the Democratic candidates self identify themselves as progressives. For some reason the term liberal seems to be out of vogue on the left nowdays. Instead the progressives seem to be leaning toward what Jonah Goldberg calls "liberal fascism".
AA,
Please define fascism for us.
fried,
I have been busy. Take it at face value and/or look up Goldberg's definition.
If you like, go ahead and define it yourself. Frankly I think this discussion will have to wait for another day.
AA,
Goldberg's definition?!? I'll take the founder of the Fascist Party's definition and you tell me how this relates at all to the Democratic Party:
Mussolini defined fascism as being a collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, classical liberalism, democracy and individualism. He wrote in The Doctrine of Fascism:
I am going to parse words. What radical left and solidly left may differ between people in AA's opinion, I don't buy. Furthermore from what I read, anyone who is in the political limelight would constitute radical left for AA. Instead check out http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm. This is a great NON-PARTISAN sight that lists a lot of stances for every major candidate. Both Clinton and Obama are listed on the standard political spectrum as solidly left, while McCain is slightly less conservative but slightly more populist. Definitely check this site out. (If you want to find anyone on the site, type in on the issues and that persons name in GOOGLE, since their search engine is not very good.)
· Voted against extending the Bush tax cuts on capital gains and dividends.
So did John McCain.....
Most of these issues are not far left issues, but common sense, for the people issues. Privatizing social security was an absolutely terrible idea, especially Bush's plan for it. That's why in every city he visited to talk about the plan, his approval rating went down after he left that city. I mean, the man told the press he saw the "T-Bills" that social security was invested in, and said "they're nothing but pieces of paper" and basically said they are worthless. (We'll leave aside the fact that questioning the full faith and credit of the United States Government is akin to treason.) He then turned right around and told us that his plan to privatize SS was for everyone to invest in...T-Bills! The same ones he said were worthless pieces of paper.
You write that Obama "Opposed any bans on partial birth abortions" which is categorically un-true. While in the Illinois Senate, Obama, on the advice of planned parenthood, voted "present" for a bill that would have denied third tri-mester abortions for any reason, without having any clauses for the health of the mother. Without those clauses, the baby must be brought to term, even at the expense of the mother's life. So I guess this issue comes down to who is more important, the baby or the mother? My vote is that the life of the mother comes first.
So he voted against the bankruptcy abuse bill. Are you for bankruptcy abuse, since apparently being against it is a far left issue?
DB,
Of course the issues in the Senate reaching the floor to vote are not radical left, but that does not mean some of the Senators, like Obama are middle left. As I stated earlier, it is Obama's associations, and his elitist views that for me place him on the far left.
ps. I'm afraid you don't know what you are talking about in this instance. . Obama's record in Illinois represents that of a pragmatic progressive, who pushed for moderate reforms and opposed right-wing legislation. In the IL legislature, voting "present" is the equivalent of voting "no" because a majority of "yes" votes are required for passage. Many IL legislators use the "present" vote as an evasion on an unpopular choice, so that they can avoid being targeted for voting "no." During the 2004 Democratic primary, an opponent mocked Obama's "present" vote on abortion bills with flyers portraying a rubber duck and the words, "He ducked!"..
Besides What do you have to say about Obama Voting against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007) in the Senate.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htmBesides What do you have to say about Obama Voting against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007) in the Senate. - AA
Uh, maybe because as a legal scholar he saw this law as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You know, that pesky old Roe v. Wade decision just so happens to be the LAW OF THE LAND.
Fog,
Your Obama apology is beside the point. But thanks.
Solon,
I'm just expressing my own opinion, the same as you are doing. I am not forcing my opinion on anyone. I would think you would understand that by now.
AA,
Why do you insist on indicating that Obama compared the two men on a personal level? That is not what happenned. JuliaJayne's earlier explanation to you should have made this crystal clear. I'm puzzled as to why you continue with this false premise.
Voted against permanently repealing the Death Tax. (Called the cuts a "Paris Hilton" tax break for "billionaire heirs and heiresses")
That's radical left to you?!?!? The Estate Tax (there is no such thing as a "death tax") affects about 2% of the citizens of this country. The anti-Estate Tax lobby is comprised of a handful of wealthy families that don't want to pay the tax. It is a tax break for billionaire heirs and heiresses.
I stated that it is Obama's inability to see the difference between Ayers and Coburn that puts him out there on the left.
And it's your inability to see that Obama did nothing of the sort that puts you out there on Planet Wingnut.
I agree this is unfair -- to the former Weatherman. Look, I'm no fan of abortion, but when the next anti-abortion fanatic shoots and kills some poor doctor, do you think he's more likely to have been "inspired" by Ayers or by Coburn?
And to the guy I'm replying to here: It's your kind of cement-headed thinking that let President Bush and Vice President Cheney shred our constitution, torture innocent people, steal two elections and launch the slaughter of 4,000 of our best people and countless Iraqis -- all the while neglecting the real business of counterterrorism and prosecuting the real battle in Afghanistan and Pakistan. People like you -- and not Sen. Obama or even the Rev. Wright and Mr. Ayers -- endanger our republic.
Yea....that sounds pretty radical left wing to me as well
Col
Are you refering to the dumb remarks made by unitarianpatriot, or your support for them? But silly me, I forget that no charge is to wild, no claim to extreme for the radical left. in your view, it is all simply the truth, and you just cant understand how anyone could not see it that way. You people really scare me at times.
They just like throwing the words "radical left" around like confetti.
I guess it all depends on freakin' far to the RIGHT one is.
You people really scare me at times
I refer you to John Dean's book about conservatism. POV is a classic scaredy cat who needs big daddy Bush to act tough so he doesn't wet his pants every time he sees an Arab.
August
Your question is dishonest and you know it. In his post that I responed to, unitarianpatriot said that bush stole 2 elections and shredded the constitution. These are radical left positions and you know it. To ask if i am against the deaths of 4,000 people as you did is just the kind of decit and miss info MMFA claims to be against.
The simple fact that so many here defend Wright with such vigor is a radical left position. If you want to know if I support waterboarding terror suspects....yes i do. These groups kidnap, kill, and cut the heads off of Americans and put it on the internnet. I have no problem with waterboarding. Wiretapping you ask. If we have reason to believe that someone is supporting terrorists, then I have no problem with that either.
Fluid documents that we can pick and choose from the clauses that we'll agree to and not agree to?
Someone who supports torture will have no reason to complain when Americans are tortured.
We uphold the Geneva Conventions regardless of what our enemies do. We uphold the Geneva Conventions because we hold ourselves to a higher standard.
If you don't agree, then you are not acting in our best interests and not only are you un-American, you're un-patriotic.
You can stick your flag pin.
Worrierking and Solon
I will try to address you both at once.
1. The constitution protects americans. They are not americans and not protected. Plain and simple
2. Perhaps one reason these groups do these thing to americans is that we dont fight back. We are in a WAR, and when we are in a war, we have to do what we have to do. Does this make me a member of the radical right wing....perhaps....but thats ok with me.
3. If our troops and operatives honestly feel.....and i do mean honestly feel that those tatics will save american lives, then I can live with it. We are fighting people who want to kill us......plain and simple. Again Solon, they do not have constitutional protections, so trials and labeling them as criminals are not necessary.
4. They have been torturing american troops, and our not doing it to them has not protected our troops in the past, and it will not in the future.
I know you guys will be fuming as you read this....but hey.....i gave you an honest answer, and I await your responses.
Have you ever been to war, sir?
Ah NO.
1. You are flat out wrong. Check the legal sections of the Bill of rights you will NOT see the words Americans OR citizens. The word used is PERSONS. The Constitution LIMITS the rights of the federal government and it does so with regards to persons not CITIZENS so that talking point is flat out wrong.
2. Being at war does NOT justify anything. By that rationale the Germans and Japanese would have been justified by torturing OUR men and yet we tried and imprisoned Japanese for waterboarding Americans
3. Excuses for torture make my skin crawl, it is EVIL. What you fail to take into account is not only do we lose the right to complain when they torture OUR people but there are another group of victims here. Those we have DO the torture. They might feel justified in the heat of war but when they come home they will be traumatized by what they have done. We should not be asking our soldiers to eschew THEIR humanity, that is too high a price to pay and once again Point of View you are FLAT OUT WRONG about the Constitution. It protects PERSONS not citizens and we cannot ever PRETEND to be a decent society if we pretend that accusing someone of anything makes them guilty of that thing.
4. When THEY torture it is evil. It defines them. I dont wish MY country to define itself as evil because others do so. The argument that we have joined the evil doers club out of necessity but we arent as bad as the other guys is simply horrific. What do you think the point of having values is? It shows nothing to have values and morality when it doesnt cost you anything, when it is easy. You only show your true morality and your REAL values when it is hard, when it comes at a cost. YOU seem to be saying that its too much trouble NOT to be evil. That doesnt work for me. You DO the right thing, not just when it is convienient but when it is comes at a cost you still do what is right or you ARENT a moral entity.
Solon,
Leave it to those who have never been to war to tell us what WAR is all about. Ridiculous to say the least. Good points.
Leave it to those who have never been to war to tell us what WAR is all about. - achrispage6992
Seems to happen pretty regularly here, Chris.In his defense, AA has given a good reason why he ducked out of going to VietNam-- his liberal college professors tricked him into it. I'm not kidding, he posted pretty much that.
As usual Col. you flat out wrong again.
The reason I didn't go to Vietnam is that I wasn't drafted. I was eligible but missed the last draft by 4 numbers. My anti-war views at the time were indeed shaped by my professors as I entered college in 1971 and studied political science. You can add to that the media, including Uncle Walter and the anti-war rhetoric of the time influenced me. Can I go back and change it? No.
Of course again the Col. only posts his ignorance about me rather than the ideas. I've come to expect it.
Interesting.
The media influenced you, your professor influenced you and you also blame Walter Kronkite for forming your opinion.
What about your family?
What about your conscience?
Ashamed that generations of Americans fought and died and were proud to do it for a country with values. A country that rejected torture, not to save their own, but because it was the right thing to do..
You bring shame to anyone who've ever worn the uniform of this nation.
Beautiful post Worrier. People who have never seen the things you and I have seen just don't have a damn clue when they talk of war and torture. They present it as if it were dinner conversation. I bet if POV or AA were waterboarded they would admit to giving Elvis the pills that killed him if asked. I wonder why they don't realize tht a person being tortured will tell you exactly what you want to hear just so they.......WON'T BE TORTURED.
I wonder if there's a clause in the Geneva Conventions that covers listening to the tortured logic that we've heard from some of our pro-torture friends here.
Your question is dishonest and you know it. In his post that I responed to, unitarianpatriot said that bush stole 2 elections and shredded the constitution. These are radical left positions and you know it. To ask if i am against the deaths of 4,000 people as you did is just the kind of decit and miss info MMFA claims to be against.
The simple fact that so many here defend Wright with such vigor is a radical left position. If you want to know if I support waterboarding terror suspects....yes i do. These groups kidnap, kill, and cut the heads off of Americans and put it on the internnet. I have no problem with waterboarding. Wiretapping you ask. If we have reason to believe that someone is supporting terrorists, then I have no problem with that either."
Well, W and his "activist court" did actually steal one election that we know. And there were many far ranging election day issues that were never really fully investigated, mostly because Kerry conceded, so that was that as they say. The republicans, and republicans alone caused chaos during the attempted Florida recounts, essentially ignoring the will of the voters, and usurping the Florda Supreme Court's decisions, when elections are a state's purview. Also bear in mind, as we know, Bush lost the popular vote easily, but unfortunately, that's not how we decide presidential elections, but yet again, the will of the majority, of the people, was not adhered to.
Shredding the Constitution is easily proved, and not far left either. He has wiretapped US citizens without a warrant, against our 4th amendment protections. Doesn't matter what those people did, or were suspected of doing, he did it against the laws that were on the books, and he did it before 9/11 as well. He has also held US citizens in prisons without access to counsel as well, again, against the laws on the books, and against the Constitution. He has shredded treaties that were signed into law and approved by Congress. He has snooped into our private lives. Bush has ignored his oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution just about since he moved into office. He has consolidated more power into the Executive branch, and has also basically ignored investigations, subpoenas and other legally pursued paths into what he has been doing since being elected. He has also willfully ignored laws that have been passed by Congress by adding signing statements essentially saying that he's signing this particular bill into law, but can ignore it if he so chooses.
Defending Jeremiah Wright is not a radical left position, it's called actually embracing the truth.
You support waterboarding, which has been defined as torture. We, meaning the US, executed JApanese soldiers who performed this torture on US soldiers during WWII. And now it's OK? We torture people, and we are supposed to be on the moral high ground, so how do we hold said high ground, when we're not any better than the so called enemy that we're fighting? We're supposed to be the good guys, and since the bad guys are beheading people, you want us to be like them and torture suspects? We're stooping to terroristic levels when we torture people, regardless of who they are, and or what they've done. That is aside from the fact about the intelligence that torture provides, which most of the time is suspect at best, in other words, they'll tell you anything to stop it.
Wiretapping. Nobody here has a problem with wiretapping, as long as it's done within the confines of what is legal. FISA provides for this, Bush ignores it. That's a problem.
"You people really scare me at times."-- pointofview
That is the biggest problem with you people--YOU ARE COWARDS!
You're willing to give away a few of your constitutional rights--rights that our forefathers fought and died for--just so you can feel a little less cowardly. You're willing to wage war against a country, based on a lie, because it makes you think you're a little safer. Then, instead of answering the charges levied against you--you turn 90* to some other issue--unable to answer the more important points.
Yes, we defended Wright with vigor, the same way we will defend you and your right to spew the bullsh!t rightwing crap that we hear daily. That does not mean that we must agree with you, or the crap, and it doesn't mean that we won't shout it down with FACTS whenever it arises.
You support waterboarding! Do you also support the use of waterboarding against our troops? I was raised to believe that The United States was better than that. That we wouldn't stoop to the uncivilized tactics used by other countries, and those tactics were war crimes--often tried and convicted. WE WERE BETTER THAN THAT ! And I believe we will be again.
We know terrorist groups kidnap, kill, and cut the heads off of Americans. Some of us are related to, or are family friends of some of these victims. And each and every one of them I consider a part of my family. We also believe that we should do all possible to end this type of horrid violence, while still maintaining the age old saying from our Grandparents; "Two wrongs don't make a right."
Now the next time you want to limit your constitutional rights--the rights that many of our ancestors, friends, classmates, and relatives fought for, keep in mind that you are also giving away my rights, and my neighbor's, and my grandchildren's, and the rights of those very people who are in Iraq and Afghanistan, defending all of us. And at the very least, think about the consequences of these types of actions.
Your question is dishonest and you know it. In his post that I responed to, unitarianpatriot said that bush stole 2 elections and shredded the constitution. These are radical left positions and you know it.
Facts and truth are radical left positions?
Ok...i will try to respond to as many of you as i can here.
1. Yes gore won the popular vote.....to bad that is not how we pick the president. If you want to argue will of the people then fine....but to claim bush stole the election....because the supreme court stopped the madness in florida.....and a flordia supreme court that refused to follw the rules is amusing. Kerry lost the election all on his own. Nothing was stolen from him.
2. While i respect those who oppose waterboarding, i do not agree with them. Anyone who thinks we have not been doing this stuff for years is crazy. We have sent people to Israel in the past to let them be "questioned" there....because we did not want to get our hands dirty. I still believe that the tatic can be useful, and we can gain intelligence from it.
3. I still can not believe that people can use Wright and truth in the same sentence. An inability by many here....not all...but many.......to see anything wrong in his comments defines the radical left.
the constitution is to protect americans. any of you here that do not think that these kinds of things have gone on during war since the founding of our contry are simply naive.
because the supreme court stopped the madness in florida
Florida was following state law. You know that old Republican mantra of states' rights? Well, that was pretty much thrown under the bus when it came down to deciding the presidency.
Oh, and by the way, the "madness" you refer to - that was caused by REPUBLICAN POLITICAL OPERATIVES.
1. ....but to claim bush stole the election....because the supreme court stopped the madness in florida.....and a flordia supreme court that refused to follw the rules is amusing.--POV
The Florida Supreme court DID follow the rules--the US Supreme court said it would be acceptable to re-count the votes, however, that recount had to be done by midnight after they made their ruling--RELEASED AT 9:PM. Yeah--real fair election.
2. While i respect those who oppose waterboarding, i do not agree with them. Anyone who thinks we have not been doing this stuff for years is crazy. We have sent people to Israel in the past to let them be "questioned" there....because we did not want to get our hands dirty. I still believe that the tatic can be useful, and we can gain intelligence from it.--POV
DO YOU THINK IT"S OKAY IF OUR SERVICE MEN AND WOMEN ARE WATERBOARDED ?
3. I still can not believe that people can use Wright and truth in the same sentence. An inability by many here....not all...but many.......to see anything wrong in his comments defines the radical left.--POV
That's strolling casually away from the point. I could also say the same thing, and insert "conservative" or "Republican" where you placed Wright's name. And while we may not agree with his opinions, he still has a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to them, the same way conservatives have a right to state their opinions even though they fly in the face of the facts.
the constitution is to protect americans. any of you here that do not think that these kinds of things have gone on during war since the founding of our contry are simply naive.-- pointofview /
TRY REALLY HARD TO READ MY POST ABOVE, AND ANSWER IT. I KNOW IT'S HARD, SO FOCUS!
Rick
starting bottom to top. The Wright issue i was talking about is not strolling away from anything. That was part of my original post of the radical left. People who support all the things he said are part of the far left. Plain and simple.
Do I think it is ok if our people are waterboarded....of course not. I dont think it is "okay" to do it to anyone. But as i said before, if our people believe it is the only way to get the job done, to get the intelligence we need, to save american lives, then yes....i believe it is necessary.
The flordia suprem court did not follow the rules. The suprem court dealt with bush v gore about a week prior sending the case back to the florida supreme court with specific instructions. The florida supreme court IGNORED the us supreme court. Very simple, they had to respond to the us supreme court, and they did not. The vote count the florida suprems allowed to take place was a sham, and ws desigen to manufacture votes for gore, and violated the us constitution. If you want to argue morals, we got a good fight going. If you want to argue the law, I will win that one every time.
I have plenty of focus, and await your response.
So, it was just fine that the US Supreme Court "allowed" the voting to continue so long as it could be completed within 3 hours? What a sham.
So, waterboarding isn't alright, but it is acceptable if we do it? What a sham.
Conservatives often talk of the slippery slope. So where do you draw the line concerning which Constitutional rights you are willing to give up?
And again--If you want to limit your constitutional rights--the rights that many of our ancestors, friends, classmates, and relatives fought for, keep in mind that you are also giving away my rights, and my neighbor's, and my grandchildren's, and the rights of those very people who are in Iraq and Afghanistan, defending all of us.
Rick
That is absurd. There is no slippery slope. I can not like something, but agree that it is necessary. I do not like war, but at times it is necessary. The only slippery slope here is in your mind.
"That is absurd. There is no slippery slope. I can not like something, but agree that it is necessary. I do not like war, but at times it is necessary."--POV
So now you're being dishonest about what I said. Here's what I wrote: "Conservatives often talk of the slippery slope. So where do you draw the line concerning which Constitutional rights you are willing to give up?"
In case you simply misunderstood--this question is not part of, nor is it applicable, to my other statements, and had nothing to do with torture.
By the way, you at first, didn't say I quoted above from your later statement. You first said; "Do I think it is ok if our people are waterboarded....of course not. I dont think it is "okay" to do it to anyone. . . .i believe it is necessary."
If you believe it's not okay to waterboard (torture), yet it is sometimes necessary, it makes me wonder if our enemies believe the same thing. My point being, that it should never be done by anyone, for any reason. If we start using the logic you employed, why should we not believe it when our enemies use this type of defense?
Solon
Find me a ruling or a precedent that says that the constitution of the united states of america provides protection to people from other countries who have never set foot in america. I dont think you can do it, but if you can, I would love to see it.
Solon
You have given me your opinion, which is fine, however incorrect it may be. You illegal alein argument falls short. If they are arrested for a crime they committed in this country, that is a diff issue. My point is that the constitution does not provide protections for people who live ouside this country and are picked up on the battle field. They have NO constitutional protections. It is simply fact. That you can not provide me ANY evidence to the contray is telling. Generally you fight with facts here. You just dont have them this time.
How about Geneva Convention rules of war? Oh I forgot--convieniently, we have never declaired war. Therefore, Bush can torture, and commit whatever other crimes that amuses him.
Kinda like frogs and firecrackers--and Conservatives play right along.
Rick
Cant believe I have to tell you this, but the Geneva Convention and the Constitution are not the same thing.
Solon
You are simply wrong. You do a nice job of weaving fact and fantasy..but you are wrong.
Simple challenge once again Solon. Fine me ANYYYYYYYYYYYY precedent or court ruling which says non citizens are protected under the constitution. Dont tell me to read, or talk about decency. Again....find me anythinggggggggggggggggggggggggggg which shows you to be right. You can not do it. I am right on this one. People picked up on the battle field over seas have noooooooooo constitutional protections.
Solon
If I am so wrong, then prove it. YOU CANT. Are you an attorney? Do you have any experience teaching law? You will not meet my challenge, because you cant. You can not provide anything to support your OPINION of how thing should be, not how they are.
And you keep thinking you can make a point and not answer my simple question. No matter how many times you shout read it.......you are still wrong. It is simple constitutional law. But once again, provide proof for your argument.
We have a S.C. who reads and decides what the constitution says..and decides what it means. You have nothing on your side....no SC case....no precedent, you cant even come up with a scholar who supports your view. I will give you a hint......there are some out there who believe your view, but as it stand now.....the constitution simply does not protect these people......plain and simple.
You are flat out wrong. What are you claiming that the writers of the constitution did not know the DIFFERENCE between citizens and person and so just SAID persons and MEANT citizens? Being stubborn and reapeating this nonsense doesnt address THAT VERY POINT in fact you havent even TRIED.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_US_Constitution_apply_only_to_citizens
Does the US Constitution apply only to citizens?
In: US ConstitutionAnswer
No, the rights of both citizens and non-citizens are protected by the US Constitution. However, there are some right specifically reserved for citizens, such as the right to a Federal job and to vote.
There ARE parts of the constitution that apply to citizens ONLY, in those parts citizens are SPECIFIED.
Did you say NO constitutional scholar disagrees? Well you would of course be WRONG. I think by any definition Lawrence Tribe qualifies as a constitutional scholar.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec02/liberty_9-10.html
: So far the courts have treated the fact that someone is an American citizen as entitling that person to better treatment in some respects. But when it comes to the fundamental right to talk to a lawyer, to talk to a judge, not to have the government unilaterally by its own say so draw the boundary between these two models, the preventive wartime model and the reactive judicial model, when it comes to that, there's really no difference between citizens and non-citizens.
Time for you to face facts, you CANNOT deny that the constittution refers to PERSONS not citizens when it comes to court protection. You cannot tell me YOU know more about this than Lawrence Tribe. You ARE FLAT OUT WRONG. I am not claiming they have ALL the constitutional rights a citizen has what I am saying is the blaket statement that the constitution only applies to citizens if WRONG.
Solon
No...i did not say that no constitutional scholars shared your view. In fact, if you re-read my post, you will find that I in fact said that some agreeed with you.
Wikepedia is a poor source and the link you provided does not address the question we are discussing. It does talk about citizens and non-citzens, but the non citizens it is talking about are on par with individuals who are illegal and in the united states already, not enemy fighters picked up on the field of battle.
If you want proof of what I am saying, check out the links provided.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWNlMjg3YWRlNmNjMTk0NDc1NzE0ZWI2YzBlOGRlNzU=
If you read these links, and the dozens of others that exist, you will learn that while this is debated in many circles, unless and until the rights and provisions you THINK are there, are added either through a law passed by congress, decided upon by the Supreme Court, or added through a constitutional ammendement, they do not exist.
Mary
So any site that you do not agree with is a right wing site? Good to know. Guess I should have got the info from Move on.
POV,
What about the Japanese we prosecuted after WWII for waterboarding? Should we rescind their convictions for being war criminals? As for wiretapping, do you agree that warrants should be issued under FISA where they can be obtained up to 72 hours after the call is tapped? I notice you didn't answer all my questions on a previous thread. Was there a reason for that?
Fridge
Sorry if I did not respond to all.....I have posted here for a few months and have never had this many questions and responses coming from so many diff people. Am really trying to keep up.
As for waterboarding after WWII and conviction that resulted from it. Was honestly not aware of that, but it is certaintly a valid point. My larger point on these tatics is that we have done them in secrect for years, and that the groups we are fighting do far worse to our troops. I simply have no desire to extrend constitutional protections to terrorist groups, and if we get info from these people that save americans or help us find Bin Laden, in my view, it is worth it.
Concering FISA....yes, FISA could and should be used. I am arguing that the provision provided for in the patriot act such as wire tapping and no knock search warrents are appropriate. Can any of these things be abused.....yes, of course they can. That does not mean that they do not have a place in the war on terror.
I have a question for you Fridge, and to all the others who are coming at me. Not ONE person has dealt with my point that torture is nothing new for this country, and shipping suspects to other places for the express purpose of torture has been done by this country for yearsssss. All of this happened long before President Bush. Why has no one addressed that point?
Because, even if it is true, it only reinforces why we should stop doing it NOW. Torture IS never, and WAS never, an acceptable practice.
There, I addressed your Q, now address my post above--if you can.
I don't think anybody here has accused Obama of being a terrorist.
Oh, please spare me. He's been repeatedly referred to as Hussein here (even though Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11), and some people still insist that he is a closet muslim who was educated in a radical madrasa and when he gains power he's going to turn the US into a caliphate.
Achrisp,
I've said it before. I believe Obama to be far to the left of mainstream America.
Col
Thats cool,,,,,,maybe I am still grumpy over the chicken you taunted me with before
"I forget that no charge is to wild, no claim to extreme for the radical left"
He must mean things like the Clinton's being mass murderers and the swift boaters.
Yeah all us stupid liberals will beleive anything.
Spoken like a true radical leftist.
If you're representative of the alternate, AA, then I PROUDLY call myself a radical leftist. Remember - the Founding Fathers your side reveres so much today were the radical leftists of THEIR time as well. The Conservatives during the Revolutionary War were called Tories.
wasn't Stalin also referred to as a radical leftist?
Only by those who were opposed to him. "Radical left" is merely as label the neo-cons used to demonize those whit whom they're unable to win an argument. It's a meaningless term - just like "Islamo-Fascist".
A conservative is accused of being a fascist everytime a liberal is losing an argument.
Solon, You are wrong. Fascism comes from the left. Communism is simply a radical form of fascism. Hitler was a socialist and promoted nationalistic fascism. Of course Mussolini was the prototypical fascist dictator.
However the term is fluid. But it is without question that fascism historically comes from the left.I know revisionist history is now all the rage with right wingers, but no... fascism is, by common and historical definition, a RIGHT WING POLITICAL MOVEMENT!!! Calling it left wing may make you feel better, but it only exposes your level of ignorance and/or dishonesty. True, Mussolini WAS a socialist in his youth... as was his father... but he ABANDONED it in order to establish a nationalistic, authoritarian movement that would funnel massive amounts of wealth and political power to himself and his henchmen. His black shirts regularly engaged in intimidation and even murder AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE LEFT! Again, it was a RIGHT WING pro-corporatist movement that demanded total obedience and conformity from its subject people. It demonized liberals as traitors to the welfare of the nation, MUCH AS REPUBLICANS DO IN THIS DAY AND AGE. Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, and other such tyrannical strongmen acknowledged themselves to be on the political right. It was the liberal democracies that they denounced as leftist.
Look, I could just as go around insisting that anarchists are right wing, but that wouldn't make it so. Words DO have meanings and we DO have common definitions. This is essential to the workings of language... common understanding of the meanings of words. This bizarre contemporary effort by many members of the right to falsely attribute murderous right wing movements to the left is exceptionally Orwellian in its conception and motivation. You recognize that most people despise fascism, so you simply attempt to attribute its evils to its VICTIMS. You figure that most people aren't really all that knowledgable about history, but do at least get that being a fascist is bad, and so you seek to dishonestly manipulate that confusion to try and smear the left. The Big Lie was pioneered by Joseph Goebbels, and has been a stock devise for the right ever since. The continued use of this devious tactic places you well within the fascist camp.
pertaining to earlier comments about whether Stalin and Hitler were leftists:
Hitler was named "Man of the Year" in 1938 by Time Magazine. They noted Hitler's anti-capitalistic economic policies:
You really aren't that stupid are you? Speech code--THE LEFT!!! Haha haha.
Do you know what Fascism is? Do you know he came to power by preaching the "Evils of Liberalism?
Go take a class, then get back with me.
Rick, it might be easier to just admit to him that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Tojo, Idi Amin, Genghis Khan, Castro, Chavez etc. were all raging, flaming, white-hot radical, far-left LIBERALS!
Then maybe he won't hurt his brain trying to decipher a history book.
Bunk. Hitlers fascism was a partership between corporate and state interests and he put REAL leftists in concentration camps
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERconcentration.htm
Thousands of members of the Social Democrat Party and Communist Party were arrested and sent to Germany's first concentration camp at Dachau, a village a few miles from Munich
http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/TIMELINE/nazirise.HTM
The German Workers' Party
, the forerunner of the Nazi Party, espoused a right-wing ideology, like many similar groups of demobilized soldiers. Adolf Hitler joined this small political party in 1919 and rose to leadership through his emotional and captivating speeches. He encouraged national pride, militarism, and a commitment to the Volk 
and a racially "pure" Germany. Hitler condemned the Jews, exploiting antisemitic feelings that had prevailed in Europe for centuries. He changed the name of the party to the National Socialist German Workers' Party, called for short, the Nazi Party (or NSDAP)
. By the end of 1920, the Nazi Party had about 3,000 members. A year later Hitler became its official leader, or Führer. 
Fascism and the Nazis are rightwing it is only repeating ludicrous talking points and a total disregard for reality that allows you to claim they are leftwing.
MY GOD MAN--GET A GRIP ! Do a little research before you try to pin all that on Liberalism. It didn't work for Hitler, and you're certainly not as intelligent as he was.
Furthermore, research history, you'll find LIBERALISM ALWAYS WINS--ALWAYS! Progress is unstopable. Conservatism slows it down, but it never stops it.
AA, you meant to say Marxist correct?
Luckily, with the availibilty of websites like this and the web in general these bald attempts to whip up a frenzy of negative sentiment for a candidate will not succeed as easily in the past.
For example we see/hear Gramps statement and in the next few seconds can easily see what exactly Senator Obama actually said, and then say to ourselves, WTFIHYA?
Demonizing? I simply stated my opinion. Feel free to accept or reject.
I would have said Marxist if I meant Marxist.
I find your critique rather meaningless considering all the pejorative's used here to demonize those on the right that you happen to let slip on through without comment.
Your opinion is ignorant at best. The 'feel free to disagree or agree' argument is lame and doesn't give you a pass on your ignorance. If you can tell me how he's radical it would make sense. But you are just regurgitating idotic comments made by Hannity, Limbaugh and the like. I guess I can call you a jackass and say "Well that's just my opinion?"
Doesn't work that way G.I. Joe.
I do so enjoy how quickly leftists show their true colors and dive straight to the bottom and start name-calling just because someone holds an opinion different than theirs.
I dunno... Is there a full moon out or is it that in springtime "young" leftists thoughts turn to insults?
:-)
AA, calling people "radical" leftists isn't name calling? You of course don't mean it as a perjorative. Don't lie, Jesus is looking over your shoulder. Search your heart and ask why you must name call and then say other people are name calling. Pray on it please.
Julia,
I find your arguments childish. You are saying you cannot assign any adjective to anyone? Is calling one a Democrat, Republican, liberal, or conservative name calling?
If you don't know the difference between that and name-calling, then you are simply an ideologue. :-)
hmm maybe that's your trouble; "unless you be as a little child, you shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven."
You could use a little childishness.
Obama insulted Colburn by suggesting he is similar to Ayers. Obama is showing his true radical left colors by attempting to equate the two.
AA, when I first started posting here you were a registered kool-aid Bush drinker now you becoming a registered McCain kool-aid drinker.
You need to hit a common sense button before you post if you think Obama was attempting to equate Ayers statements and Colburns statements. Obama asked Steffie if he had to explain his friendship WITH Colburn since Colburn made those a** backwards statements about physician who perform LEGAL procedures.
Just say the real reason you're not supporting Obama and stop coming up with these half baked reasons.
After briefly gandering over the debate transcript, I didn't see where BO compared Ayers to Coburn. He simply pointed out the fallaciousness of the question. BO just as easily could've said that he's on friendly terms with Kucinich, but that doesn't mean he believes in aliens . . . . The point has been made exhaustively -- BO doesn't agree with every word that comes from the mouths of his supporters . ..
Very regrettably, I'm gonna have to say that the Straight-Talker veered off his game here. Notwithstanding, Our confidence in the Maverick should remain steadfast
Our confidence in the Maverick should remain steadfast.
Steve, I wish I shared your confidence in The Mav, but I don't. I have no faith in any of his positions, as they appear to change daily depending on the audience he is speaking to. The R at the end of his name won't change that. IMO, he is a RINO and a flip flopper and no better than Hillary.
This is just one more petty, bogus, manufactured controversy shoveled into the discourse by the GOP's propaganda machine. We're about to be buried in it, because that's all they have.
I was watching Joe Scarborough on MSNBC feign outrage about Obama's "connection" to Ayers. The irony is, one of Scarborough's first jobs was defending a radical right-wing terrorist named Michael F. Griffin who murdered an abortion doctor in cold blood. Griffin stalked OB-GYN Dr. David Gunn, then shot him three times in the back. Scarborough defended him pro-bono in his murder trial.
Does this mean any public figure who appears on Scarborough's show has to distance themself from Griffin? Can't that be considered an "association with a terrorist"?
I don't think they should. To me, this connect-the-dots guilt by association is getting ridiculous. The mainstream media just plays along, like usual.
pertaining to earlier comments about whether Stalin and Hitler were leftists:
Hitler was named "Man of the Year" in 1938 by Time Magazine. They noted Hitler's anti-capitalistic economic policies:
more from the same source
Hitler setup the Labour Front. Both employers and employees joined it. According to the National Labour Law of January 20, 1934, the state would exert direct influence and control over all business employing more than twenty persons. In other words, both employers and employees were put under the control of the government.
Summary: Below is a short economic analysis of German Economy under the Nazis. It is apparent they ran a centralized collectivist economy just like the Soviet Union. It was a political party that acted much in the same way the American Left does in regard to unemployment and trying to use the government to decrease it. It notes that the Nazis used public works to a large extent, which is exceedingly leftist, and put people to work for the State.
The Nazis started enacting other leftist ploys like price freezes and starting expanding the role of the government and destroying any freedom left in the Market. Private Property owners were dictated to by the State. Clearly Nazis were opponents of capitalism through and through.
Do you want to talk Capitalism V Socialism V Fascism, or do you want to talk Conservatism Vs. Liberalism?
Me thinks you've treaded into territory you don't quite understand.
I don't think anybody here has accused Obama of being a terrorist.
Oh, please spare me. He's been repeatedly referred to as Hussein here (even though Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11),
perhaps hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, but he had a lot to do with terrorists. isn't obama's middle name hussein? can't use his real name? more rules from the left.
You really aren't that stupid are you? Speech code--THE LEFT!!! Haha haha therick
Who creates speech codes? Liberal universities, that's who creates them. Who creates hate crimes - leftists. Are you such a fool?
Because assswipe, the only reason you did it was because said person was gay. That's it. He or she didn't kill your cat. Didn't do anything wrong to you, or anyone else, didn't have words with you, nothing. You did it because they were a different sexual orientation. That's hate, pure and simple.
Speech codes? Last I knew, there was still freedom of speech in this country, try again.
well, i was using the term sodomite to refer to arabs, not gays as to whom i bear no ill will. i guess it was a poor choice now that i think of it, but i just read an editorial about sexual practices of ululators and didn't think of the broader picture. i apologize if anyone was offended, unless it was a ululator who was offended.
now as for the first amendment, it only pertains to government making laws abridging the right free speech. any person or entity not governmental, or somehow being determined to be acting in a governmental capacity can abridge speech.
but universities which usually in some fashion are state supported should not have the right to abridge, and yet they do it routinely to suppress what they consider hate or offensive speech. I remember the case of a guy at a law school threatened with explusion because he had a copy of maxim that offended two female students. now how wacko is that
The person who commits a crime out of pure hate creates a hate crime (AChrispage)
No, you've got it all wrong, AC- it's the person who notices the crime that creates it. Otherwise it's one of those tree falling in the forest deals.Just as those trying to have a discussion about race are keeping racism alive.
Catch up with the new right wing double talk, would ya? ;0)
I do so enjoy how quickly leftists show their true colors and dive straight to the bottom and start name-calling just because someone holds an opinion different than theirs.
I dunno... Is there a full moon out or is it that in springtime "young" leftists thoughts turn to insults?
:-)
even a man who is pure of heart and says his prayers by night, can become a fool when the wolfbane blooms, and the autumn moon is bright.
Wow! Your intellectual prowness amazes us all. Now then, if you will just admit that your conservative ideology is remarkably similiar to Radical Islam then we'll be getting somewhere.
"even a man who is pure of heart and says his prayers by night, can become a fool when the wolfbane blooms, and the autumn moon is bright." -- rumplestilskin396408
The correct quote is: Even a man who is pure in heart And says his prayers by night, May become a wolf when the wolf-bane blooms, And the autumn moon is bright--The Wolfman
Yet you exhibit that some are fools 24/7 .
Hitler condemned the Jews, exploiting antisemitic feelings that had prevailed in Europe for centuries-Solon
So Hitler hated jews. who hates jews today, other than the sodomites. lefties. who marches against israel on campus, lefties. who supports the international solidarity movement, lefties. who hates israel in europe, liberal governments.
When aa, pov and rumple throw around the terms left and right, conservative and liberal, I'm reminded of one of Dr. Dean Ornish's books. He related a conversation he'd had with a heart surgeon about his research showing that heart disease could be reversed with a very low fat, vegetarian diet, exercise, meditation and group support.
The surgeon made the comment that this regime sounded very "radical" to him. The surgeon favored the "conservative" approach, which is heart by-pass, involves cutting open the chest, putting the patient on a heart and lung machine with the heart stopped, grafting arteries or veins from elsewhere in the patient's body grafted to the coronary arteries, etc.
He also might want to look up Theissen Steel and the ties that Prescott Bush had to the Nazi war machine. We're not talking about the "left" or the "right" we're talking about warmongering corporatists.
might also look at ibm, and don't forget old joe kennedy who was decidedly pro germany while ambassador to the court of st. james, and jfk's affair with a suspected german spy.
You can repost this partisan nonsense over and over if you want to but it wont change the FACT Hitler put real lefties in concentration camps and that NO ONE outside the brainwashed idiotic rightwing morons consider Nazi Fascism to be anything but rightwing.
geez, hitler put commies in camps. well, commies owed their allegiance to stalin, mother russia. and as i recall, germany and russia were enemies, notwithstanding the ribbentrop deal, long before operation barbarosa. of course, hitler hated the commies. but he was a socialist, the same as a commie, but he did not owe fealty to stalin. are you so dumb.
Bogus, weak and without merit. He also put the Social Democrats in concentration camps you can READ right? Got any evidence that the German communists were loyal to the Soviet Union? Marx himself said the only way to deal with a Russian was over the barrel of a gun. You do realize things dont become true just becuase you say them right? Did WE put communists in jail because we were fighting communist Vietnam? Korea? Please tell me you were having us on and didnt really think that was a cogent argument. He put them in concentration camps BECAUSE THEY WERE LEFTISTS. The RED triangle was for POLITICAL CRIMES those were Communists AND Social Democrats.
I don't think he killed anyone, he just snuck up on them and cut their ears off.
But it has become painfully obvious that Rumpy's a very ill person.
Rumpy, I feel sorry for you, and the others who lost their sense of humanity in these wretched wars. However, please, don't make threats to our friends here at MMFA, or I might stop feeling pity and have to shove your necklace up your ass you sick fu<k.
Wow, YOU are calling ME ignorant and dnot know what sodomy IS? Your stupidity is beyond comprehension -solon
so, solon, who cannot spell, is referring to gays as sodomites. how homophotic and despicable. i only used the term to refer to ululators. but solon uses it to refer to such people as barney frank. beyond the pale, solon. it wounds me to the soul.
Rump
What exactly is "our public schoo system"? Did you mean SCHOOL SYSTEM? If so, how embarrassing for you, considering you were in the midst of attempting to demean Solon for HIS spelling deficiencies.
You really are a putz, you know.
"it wounds me to the soul."--Rumpy
How would you know?
By the way, pleast stop posting your ignorance and violence. I'm sure it scores points with braindead Con's who admire jewelry made from human body parts, but, as for me, it makes me want to throw up. Frankly, I'm getting tired of flagging your obscene and abusive posts.
If you want to debate issues--fine. But your posts above are the sickest things I've ever read on the net. Wonderful family values ya got there. Honestly, I've never been impressed by punks, and if you actually served in VietNam, you're too old to be acting like a punk. The people I know who served (Consrvative or Liberal) would never disgrace their branch of the military by saying the things you said tonight.
This is at least his second reincarnation here. He used to post under the name HYSTRYBFF or some such nonsense. He got progressively more deranged with each post until he resorted to posting flat out racist bile and got canned.
He's also posted quite a few things that made no sense. He once posted a timeline of his life which had eighteen years of exploits, in a fifteen year period. And three of the years were the time he spent in Vietnam. Then there were the years practicing law. And then there were the years he worked for the RNC. And then there were the years he wined and dined with spouses of Supreme Court Justices. And he escorted several stars to various social engagements. Attended speeches of every right-wing nut job and probably played centerfield for the 1950 NL Champion Philadelphia Phillies and watched three of OJ Simpson's dogs as he stood trial.
What I'm getting at is is you follow his history here, nothing adds up. He's a name dropper. I won't comment on his military service. I accept whatever anyone says about their own service. But the rest of his real or imagined exploits have left me shaking my head.
One last reference to AA: don't squander your time on these ridiculous super right-wing and authoritarian screeds. There are a few good conservatives participating in these discussions who honestly THINK about issues and, I believe, sincerely add much for us to ponder. As so many of you have rightly suggested, just go back and read the actual words or watch the videos over and over to discover EXACTLY what was said and how the MSM often, by leaving out a phrase or overselling the criticism of remarks (spin), effectively DISTORT the truth. Personally, I feel I am a "partner" with MMFA by trying to do just that. Also, I have learned much from all of you.
This is starting to get ridiculous. Ayers is an unrepentent terrorist. Obama's pathetic defense is that Ayers did it 40 years ago. Ayers still maintians TODAY that he did not set off enough bombs. He does not rule out more bombings in the future.
I would not shake the hand of a terrorist much less kick off a campaign at his house or appear together with him at a forum.
Ayers is not really the issue. Obama has the shortest resume of anyone who has ever run for President. He claims that his judgement compensates for his lack of experience. The fact that he hangs out with terrorists seriously calls his judgement into question.
Obama then equates terrorist Ayers with Sen. Coburn. Sen. Coburn is a physician who brings life into the world. Coburn is committed to protecting and defending life. Ayers is committed to destroying it. Wake up folks.
As for coburn, yes, he did indeed call for the execution of abortion doctors. An interesting way to choose life.