Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I seem to recall reading other statements on these boards from... this morning... about nutty preachers endorsing members of the GOP. Granted, they weren't the candidate's own ministers of twenty year's standing. But there seemed to be no question that the endorsement, at the very least, implied a connection.<< GOP members, Bush and McCain specifically, actively sought out those endorsements (and the campaign dollars that follow). To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Obama has not actively campaigned to earn hamas' endorsement. Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain don't seem to want to distance themse;lves from ministers who saw Katrina as God's vengence for a planned gay pride parade. Instead, it is Obama who must repudiate, how many times now?, the things his pastor said.
Originally Posted By ecdc Dug, you can continue to assert that CNN is wrong in their reporting all you'd like. But you continue to have no evidence of that, as dabob2 pointed out. It's what all news organizations do. As for the "absurd level of rancor" here, we'll make sure and check with you next time before we post how we feel about something. That way I can find out from the authority if my posts are too absurd or not. But wait, that would be making it about personalities, wouldn't it - something we all know you never, ever do. You're more than welcome to swallow whatever Bush feeds you and reject whatever CNN reports. But don't preach about personalities as frequently as you have in the past, then turn around and talk about the "rancor" and tone of the posts here.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Instead, it is Obama who must repudiate, how many times now?, the things his pastor said.>> Well that seems to be the only Obama hasn't been given a free pass on by some media outlets. But overall there seems to be this belief that he should be admired from afar and anyone who doesn't somehow hates him, NBC come on down. Which frankly is rather insulting and condescending to Senator Obama. And before everyone gets their panties in a bunch, don't worry the HanniCoultRushes have done it for the last 7 1/2 years with the President Bush.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>there seems to be this belief that he should be admired from afar<< No. But if the best we can come up with to knock him is lapel pins and his pastor, good grief...
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <When the leader of Hamas offers an endorsement of a candidate, it is legitimate to discuss it.> Only to the extent that the discussion recognizes it is a ridiculous connection. <I seem to recall reading other statements on these boards from... this morning... about nutty preachers endorsing members of the GOP. Granted, they weren't the candidate's own ministers of twenty year's standing. But there seemed to be no question that the endorsement, at the very least, implied a connection.> 2oony already covered this, but McCain went out of his way to get the endorsement of these guys, for political gain, when he HAD no real past connection. Obama did not go trolling for Hamas' endorsement, now did he? <Obama is completely within his rights to repudiate the statements of the leader of Hamas.> Which he did. <Or to claim that he had no idea just what his minister was preaching from the pulpit in the church he attended for twenty years.> Which as far as we know, he didn't. <And we all have the privilege of making decisions based on the conversation.> And I've got the privilege of pointing out that this passive aggressive style of yours bears a striking resemblance to the way Sullivan characterized McCain: "It's a way to peddle slime while pretending that you're not."
Originally Posted By DAR <<No. But if the best we can come up with to knock him is lapel pins and his pastor, good grief...>> The lapel pins was ridiculous no argument there. But Jermiah Wright engages in a brand of hate speech that makes him no better than the Falwells and Robertsons of the world.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Dug, you can continue to assert that CNN is wrong in their reporting all you'd like.<< And I will, thank you. >>But you continue to have no evidence of that, as dabob2 pointed out. It's what all news organizations do.<< I didn't assert that CNN was "wrong." I said they lied. And no one has repudiated that. (See post 50.) And I will note for the future that we are in agreement that "It's what all news organizations do." >>As for the "absurd level of rancor" here, we'll make sure and check with you next time before we post how we feel about something.<< If you wish. >>That way I can find out from the authority if my posts are too absurd or not.<< Ah, but nowhere did I say that any posts were absurd, Just that the level of rancor was. A fine distinction, but one I am sure we can all appreciate. >>But wait, that would be making it about personalities, wouldn't it...<< Uh huh. >>...something we all know you never, ever do.<< Well, at least I do my best. >>You're more than welcome to swallow whatever Bush feeds you and reject whatever CNN reports.<< Noted. >>But don't preach about personalities as frequently as you have in the past, then turn around and talk about the "rancor" and tone of the posts here.<< But that's just the point. I DON'T talk about personalities, and DO talk about the posts. Unless, of course, I am absolutely pushed into the corner and compelled to respond.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I didn't assert that CNN was "wrong." I said they lied. And no one has repudiated that. (See post 50.) And I will note for the future that we are in agreement that "It's what all news organizations do."<< And your post 50 gives nothing that CNN was lying. But by all means repeat it as many times as possible. That might make it true.... >>Ah, but nowhere did I say that any posts were absurd, Just that the level of rancor was. A fine distinction, but one I am sure we can all appreciate.<< A distinction with out a difference - no, I can't really appreciate that. You directly commented on the tone people on these boards had taken. That would be talking about personalities. To insist otherwise is as silly as to...well...insist Bush wasn't talking about Obama. And of course, McCain responded today as if Bush was referring to Obama. He continued to accuse Obama of the very things Bush said, rather than saying this was a non-issue. Those that actually believe Bush (because he's got such a great track record) are few and far between. >>But that's just the point. I DON'T talk about personalities, and DO talk about the posts. Unless, of course, I am absolutely pushed into the corner and compelled to respond.<< Ah, I see. Wow, this post sounds more and more like Bush and McCain by the moment. Lots of plausible deniability and a refusal to acknowledge the obvious. I guess I'll just start saying things like "that post was the stupidest thing I've ever read." After all, it would be talking about the post, and not at all commenting on the person who wrote it. At least that's how it is in GOPLand.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I guess I'll just start saying things like "that post was the stupidest thing I've ever read." After all, it would be talking about the post, and not at all commenting on the person who wrote it. At least that's how it is in GOPLand.<< No, that would be the way things are here at LP, where we are compelled to discuss ideas, rather than personalities. How that leads to the extrapolation that talking about the general tone of a discussion is just like talking about individual people, I guess I'll never understand.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "And yes, we should treat CNN with suspicion. Yes. They essentially lied in their reporting. Yes. And Obama and others are, indeed, using this to whip up a political frenzy. Glad we understand each other on this, at least." No, we don't. Not at all. Where you get this is anyone's guess.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Here's what I find amusing. Some Hamas terrorist anounces he likes Obama. Obama has absolutely no control over any such proclamation. Besides commenting on the ridiculous of having to comment at all, what else could Obama do but distance himself? For McCain to say what he said, no matter whose interpretation of his remarks are used, is certainly "whipping up a frenzy". The responsible thing for McCain to do is acknowledge Obama doesn't stand for the same thing and can't control these things. Call it what it is- a Hamas terrorist trying to muck up the election process. Judging from McCain's reaction to it, he succeeded. Way to go. However, when someone like Limbaugh cooks up Operation Chaos, complete with party jumping, interference with the voting in primaries, encouraging rioting, Republicans want you to believe they don't endorse that, have nothing to do with it, and can't control the fat schmuck. Yet Obama should be held to answer for some piece of Hamas feces?
Originally Posted By X-san ***Wow so saying this about terrorists makes one a bigot?*** You weren't speaking to terrorists with your racial epithets, you were speaking to Muslims and, in a larger sense, to the entirety of Middle Eastern culture. That's racist. But again, you get a pass because the region is forever associated with the attackers of 9/11 (of which there were very few, relative to how many middle easterners there are out there). If you said the same junk about blacks or asians you'd be banned immediately, I'm sure.
Originally Posted By DAR <<So we should talk with Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda and any of these other terroist groups? Let's see what would their issues be, oh yeah. All women are to be treated lower than dogs. You can only accept the ways of Allah, if you don't you are an infidel and must die. All the Jews must die. >> X-San show me anywhere in my orignal statement where I generalize that statement to mean all Muslims?
Originally Posted By dshyates As far as the "absurd level of rancor", It seems to pale in comparison to the hissy fit the right threw when such high profile Democratic leader as the Dixie Chicks said they were embarrassed that W. was from Texas while they were in Germany. The right went on and on about how inappropriate it was to air our dirty laundry on foreign soil. Then the boycotts complete with record burning. And it is pretty obvious that the GOP is trying to paint Obama as an anti-Semite and that he would be a danger to Israel. This is to sway the Jewish vote in America, and more specifically Florida and New York. Its no accident he threw this out at the Knesset. I believe it really isn't important to listen to the rights rationalizations like, "He wasn't talking about Obama. See he said "Some" not Obama". And we all know Bush is taking Obama saying he isn't opposed to the use of diplomacy in the case of Iran, and stretchig it to cover Hamas and Al Qaida. It is once again "fear factor" politics. The old tried and true, "If you vote for him, the terrorists are gonna kill your children" or in this case, wipe out your entire race of people, tactic the GOP loves so much. These guys know no bounds. And this is just the beginning of what they are going to throw at him. And what the best part is, is that this is showing what the GOP has in its hand. The fact they lead with such a disingenous and factually incorrect attack tells me they aren't holding a strong hand and are looking desperate. If they have to lie about what Obama originally said, and can't use his actual words against him, then this will be shown as "pure political BS".
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>The responsible thing for McCain to do is acknowledge Obama doesn't stand for the same thing and can't control these things.<< You mean, maybe he should have said something like, "It's very obvious to everyone that Senator Obama shares nothing of the values or goals of Hamas, which is a terrorist organization?†Oh wait, that's what he actually did say, adding, “But it's also fact that a spokesperson from Hamas said that he approves of Obama's candidacy. I think that's of interest to the American people.†Is it a fact that a spokesperson from Hama said he approves of Obama's candidacy? Why, yes. Is it of interest to the American people? It would seem to be. Where everybody seems to get hung up is on the question of whether or not it should be. But like it or not, it is, which is McCain's point. For what it's worth, the issue of McCain's age was brought up in the course of the same converstaion. McCain's campaign staff have been very huffy about perceptions that this has been brought up. But McCain's response is that, as a point of interest, it's a legitimate subject of conversation. (The exact statement was: "Any discussion in my view of any issue that the American people think is legitimate is up to them.") Sauce for the goose... Source: <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/09/mccain-defends-his-bearings/" target="_blank">http://politicalticker.blogs.c...earings/</a>
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>As far as the "absurd level of rancor", It seems to pale in comparison to the hissy fit the right threw when such high profile Democratic leader as the Dixie Chicks said they were embarrassed that W. was from Texas while they were in Germany. The right went on and on about how inappropriate it was to air our dirty laundry on foreign soil. Then the boycotts complete with record burning.<< Trust me, if anyone started burning records here on LP, I would be just as huffy about the level of rancor. But I do agree that getting into hissy fits is inapropriate.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder >You mean, maybe he should have said something like, "It's very obvious to everyone that Senator Obama shares nothing of the values or goals of Hamas, which is a terrorist organization?†Oh wait, that's what he actually did say, adding, “But it's also fact that a spokesperson from Hamas said that he approves of Obama's candidacy. I think that's of interest to the American people.â€< You didn't quite get what I said. I know he said the first part, but rather than say "it's of interest to the American people", he should say it's obvious that Obama can't control what Hamas has said, NOT "it's of interest to the American people". Moreover, that Hamas likely just wants to gum up the works vis a vis this election is something McCain defenders on this one continue to feed.
Originally Posted By ecdc Hamas' endorsement of Obama is of interest to the American people the same way his lack of a flag lapel pin is of interest to the American people. It's of interest only to the lowest common denominator that would rather worry about pointless crap instead of real issues. It's of interest to people who find their brain hurting over topics like universal healthcare, off-shoring of jobs, Alaska oil-drilling, and the difference between Sunni and Shia Muslims. They'd rather have something easier to identify which candidate to vote for, and the guy without the flag lapel with the middle name Hussein gives them just what they need. The GOP must be very proud to court these kinds of voters.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And there IS no connection between Obama and Hamas.> Except of course, for the advisor that was working for both.
