heck reading the paper this weekend it seems that McCain has some Skeletons in the closet when it comes to dealing with some questionable characters.
__________________________________________________ ______________________--

Hoping that GMONEY will supply some of the names and links...please ?

Thanks

Originally Posted by Bucco

heck reading the paper this weekend it seems that McCain has some Skeletons in the closet when it comes to dealing with some questionable characters.
__________________________________________________ ______________________--

Hoping that GMONEY will supply some of the names and links...please ?

Thanks

Lets try this one out... The names Anthony Bouscaren Mean anything or maybe Leonore Annenberg. She has something to do with Obama and Ayers. better yet check this site.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#27092691

I think the one about the Oregon McCain delegate praising an abortion terrorist who shot a doctor and BOMBED abortion clinics is the best.

John McCain linked to domestic terrorist.

I began this thread kiddingly noting that the McCain campaign was alleging that Barack Obama initiated the investigation of Governor Palin's alleged abuse of office. Of course that was impossible because the non-partisan investigation was empaneled before John McCain was even nominated and when Sarah Palin was but a twinkle in someone's eye. I intended to use this as an example of how the campiagns have gotten to the point that they simply fabricate stuff and put it out, without any research whatsoever. My point was that they're trying desperately to misdirect the electorate's attention away from the real issues so the candidates won't have to discuss them. I was hoping we could resist the agitation of the campaigns and their Madison Avenue advertising advisors and begin to discuss the real issues here.

My attempt didn't work. We've regressed back to the tit-for-tat accusations, just as the campaigns want us to. GMONEY came up with examples of John McCain's character and judgement faults that seem every bit as damaging as the Ayers-Wright stuff being used against Obama. Don't we recognize that this stuff is all being planted and accelerated by the campaigns, who want to steer their candidates as far away from a discussion of the issues as possible?

Could we agree that enough is enough? The dirt diggers can find equally bad stuff involving both candidates. I submit that none of it should disqualify either candidate.

Issues, folks...issues! Anyone want to discuss them? Start a new thread.

I am either the one totally confused or something.

Simply stated as I can: Sen McCain's campaign is trying to point out the radical element that is in Sen Obama's background. He is not talking about those who endorsed him...he is simply pointing out that HIS IDEALOGY is steeped in radical left wing politics.

Why is this important ? Because Sen McCain has a visible record of well over 25 years of associations, friends, enemies, voting records, appearances...whatever you want. Sen Obama has NONE. There fore, it is important to understand the idealogy that drives Sen Obama since we do not that years and years of visibility.

That is what is being stated.

Now, you folks and others are making it something else. You are bringing up all these names as folks who endorse Sen McCain...well, now if that works....Farrakhan endorses Sen Obama and refers to him as the messiah. The American Communist Party endorses very strongly Sen Obama.

To KAHUANA....I respectfully understand your point about the "tit for tat" thing. However as one who began threads 6 weeks ago on this subject, I respectfully disagree with you. Not JUST Sen Obama's associates, but CERTAINLY ALL OF HIS ASSOCIATES AND TRAINING are issues to be discussed since he HAS NO RECORD OF ANYTHING. If a candidate had the same associations with Ayers as Obama does AND had a visible public record for 20 years, then that association is weighed against the record and thus would probably be less important. That is my point and I am not saying any of this because I am just throwing names around.

Sen Obama is a man we know nothing about except for his political speeches and appearances and we all spend hours on here saying how the speeched and politics mean nothing/./.that it is what they do that counts...well he has done NOTHING BUT RUN FOR OFFICE. I also think a 20 year association with Rev Wright is important. Sen McCain is trying to honor something he said during the primaries about not bringing it up but IT IS RELATIVE.

How you can advise electing a President with no voting record.....nothing to base a decision on except for speeches and ads (which on here I remind you we make fun of for both parties) and want to ignore 20 years attending a church of hate for a certain race...and even calling that Pastor his mentor and advisor....his association with a man who killed and maimed people and has said recently he does not regret and will do it again is simply beyond any logic. You are basing your decisions on nothing but political speeches or simply wanting a change for change sake irregardless of what you get !

Bucco, do you recall a fellow by the name of Ronald Reagan?

Other than being a movie star, a spokesman for GE, and a few years as governor of California, he was unknown at the national level. He too was best known for making a lot of speeches.

Most would say he turned out OK.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I began this thread kiddingly noting that the McCain campaign was alleging that Barack Obama initiated the investigation of Governor Palin's alleged abuse of office. Of course that was impossible because the non-partisan investigation was empaneled before John McCain was even nominated and when Sarah Palin was but a twinkle in someone's eye. I intended to use this as an example of how the campiagns have gotten to the point that they simply fabricate stuff and put it out, without any research whatsoever. My point was that they're trying desperately to misdirect the electorate's attention away from the real issues so the candidates won't have to discuss them. I was hoping we could resist the agitation of the campaigns and their Madison Avenue advertising advisors and begin to discuss the real issues here.

My attempt didn't work. We've regressed back to the tit-for-tat accusations, just as the campaigns want us to. GMONEY came up with examples of John McCain's character and judgement faults that seem every bit as damaging as the Ayers-Wright stuff being used against Obama. Don't we recognize that this stuff is all being planted and accelerated by the campaigns, who want to steer their candidates as far away from a discussion of the issues as possible?

Could we agree that enough is enough? The dirt diggers can find equally bad stuff involving both candidates. I submit that none of it should disqualify either candidate.

Issues, folks...issues! Anyone want to discuss them? Start a new thread.

Dont think they get it. but here is another one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27157703/

I was simply stating the same. Seems everyone is rear ending Obama on the Ayers deal and Muslim deal. I was told to show were i read something on McCain. you show one thing, and they bring something else up. i was simply stating the McCain has a skeleton just like everyone else. Lets agree to disagree. VK your original post was good.
I guess i hit a sore spot linking McCain to anything that is not to their liking.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Bucco, do you recall a fellow by the name of Ronald Reagan?

Other than being a movie star, a spokesman for GE, and a few years as governor of California, he was unknown at the national level. He too was best known for making a lot of speeches.

Most would say he turned out OK.

You talking about the guy who was Governor of California and turned it around ?

I was simply stating the same. Seems everyone is rear ending Obama on the Ayers deal and Muslim deal. I was told to show were i read something on McCain. you show one thing, and they bring something else up. i was simply stating the McCain has a skeleton just like everyone else. Lets agree to disagree. VK your original post was good.
I guess i hit a sore spot linking McCain to anything that is not to their liking.
__________________________________________________ __________________________

Let me explain one more time...you will not "hit a sore spot" with me on Sen McCain in anyway..I AM NOT A MCCAIN SUPPORTER.

I, have however, read both..yeah he already wrote two...AUTObio's of Sen Obama (by the way they differ in lots of cases..he improved in the second one)...also read extensively about his background and relationships.

From that and watching his campaign since the primaries began, there is no reason to change my fear of this man's idealogies. That is all I am saying. Sen McCain, warts and all, is an open book....Sen Obama is NOT IN ANYWAY. They already have changed a few of his websites to CHANGE his relationship with ACORN for example.

You can bash Sen McCain 24/7 but it is ALL PUBLIC knowledge.

I want change also, but not radical...ESPECIALLY RIGHT NOW. This Sen Obama may be a great man....he surely feels he is, and ALL of the radical groups in the country do also.
I hope he is, honestly....I just have done a lot of homework on him, and while I am not happy with the last 8 years, I fear the next 4 !!! All doors to criticize Sen Obama are closed with a sign saying...."that is racist" or "that is hate mongering". Sen Clinton found that in the primary and we see the same thing in the general election. That should give you a clue !

No, I defend Sen McCain only in the context of how bizarre it is to criticize a man whose life is an open book and not be able to on a man this country knows very little about.

Originally Posted by Bucco

You talking about the guy who was Governor of California and turned it around ?

Kahuna I am sorry...I made a flip quick reply to you on this one. I just, and this is obviously just me, get so annoyed with some of these comparisons. Ronald Regan had a life that was anything but shrouded and shadowy...it was open for many many years. I just KNOW FOR A FACT, that we do not know all we should know about our Sen Obama. He may turn out great but just ask about his TWENTY YEARS LONG relationship with Rev Wright, and you are a racist..TWENTY YEARS..not a meeting TWENTY YEARS. Ask about Ayers, who by the way to me is the least worrisome associate, and you are a hate mongerer. Ask about studying Sal Alinsky and you are told that gee...Sen Clinton wrote her thesis on him...but you dont hear that the White House when President Clinton was elected had that paper buried and not accessible to the public (wonder why).

We are asked to ignore all of this about a man who is in his mid 40's....he is not 70 and lived through a lot...he is in his mid 40's and has all this BUT we are asked to forget it...why...well, the 20 years dont count because he took a day WHILE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT to disown Rev Wright...the Ayers doesnt count because gee whiz this killer and maimer has done good things, and thus the erstwhile PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES can embrace him as a friend...his time as a communtiy organizer utilizing the Alinsky scheme (which he used also during his campaign) doesnt count for whatever reason you can think of. His campaign's appeal to black to vote for him BECAUSE of his skin color is ok and not racist in anyway because they should be proud of him BECAUSE OF HIS COLOR.....we should ignore Jessie Jackson's son saying in public and advising Sen Obama that he is acting "too white"......we should ignore whatever and how tenuous a relationship he had or has with ACORN because he said there is none.....And on that subject we should ignore the FRAUD being done in his name by ACORN because we just flat dont care.

Sorry Kahuana...I respect your opinion but you cannot make me trust this man. He is doing everything to get elected...he changed his mind on campaign financing and Sen McCain kept his word and is getting crushed on tv because of it...he is changing his views to become more electable
(see offfshore driliing for one). He comes to us at the right time....8 years of frustration...it is the time for change and here he is.

I do not believe in change SIMPLY for change sake !

This will be my last post on this whole who said and did, and changed their mind subject,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27157703/

watch till the end, i guess he forgot he voted for the deal he is complaining about.
i must also add, that i am not decided on either one to vote for, but you have to look at both of them, and oh yess McCain has changed his mind as much as " THAT ONE OVER THERE"
Neither one will have the solution to the Economy, no one does. It is a hit and miss deal.. But someone has to try...

I can't buy into the description of Barack Obama's past as "shrouded and shadowy". For crying out loud, the man had a prestigious academic career, he bypassed the opportunity to make a huge salary to organize minorities so they could have a better life, he was elected as a State Senator, then a U.S. Senator, survived a bitter primary campiagn and is now running for President.

A whole lot of people have tried to find bad stuff about Barack Obama for a long, long time. Now we should conclude that because he went to a large church near his home on Chicago's south side pastored by a guy who in recent months has developed into a radical racial activist, we should disqualify Obama from consideration as President? There is no evidence of Wright's radical teachings to his members before the crazy speech he made less than a year ago. No one has proven that Obama ever endorsed Reverend Wright's teachings. In fact, he has denounced his recent speech and has left Wright's church. And as you know, the "association" with William Ayers was tenuous at best.

I won't argue about it any more. You've chosen McCaain and I'll vote for Obama. I admire a smart, personable family man who has demonstrated an ability to enthuse and lead people in a very positive way, both here and around the world. That's just what we need as the President of the country. What we don't need is a man who has apparently lost his strong character and has stated he will embrace the failed fiscal policies of his predecessor, will continue a hawk-like foreign policy, and only attempts to incite his followers with backward-looking and negative personal attacks on his opponent instead of discussing the issues facing the country and his plans to address them. No, the fact that Obama went to a church that it turns out was lead by a racial activist isn't enough for me to disqualify the man.

I agree that we disagree. There's little point in continuing the dialog.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I can't buy into the description of Barack Obama's past as "shrouded and shadowy". For crying out loud, the man had a prestigious academic career, he bypassed the opportunity to make a huge salary to organize minorities so they could have a better life, he was elected as a State Senator, then a U.S. Senator, survived a bitter primary campiagn and is now running for President.

A whole lot of people have tried to find bad stuff about Barack Obama for a long, long time. Now we should conclude that because he went to a large church near his home on Chicago's south side pastored by a guy who in recent months has developed into a radical racial activist, we should disqualify Obama from consideration as President? There is no evidence of Wright's radical teacj=hings to his members before the crazy speech he made less than a year ago. No one has proven that Obama ever endorsed Reverend Wright's teachings. In fact, he has denounced his recent speech and has left Wright's church. And as you know, the "association" with William Ayers was tenuous at best.

I won't argue about it any more. You've chosen McCaain and I'll vote for Obama. I admire a smart, personable family man who has demonstrated an ability to enthuse and lead people in a very positive way, both here and around the world. That's just what we need as the President of the country. What we don't need is a man who has apparently lost his strong character and has stated he will embrace the failed fiscal policies of his predecessor, will continue a hawk-like foreign policy, and only attempts to incite his followers with backward-looking and negative personal attacks on his opponent instead of discussing the issues facing the country and his plans to address them. No, the fact that Obama went to a church that it turns out was lead by a racial activist isn't enough for me to disqualify the man.

I agree that we disagree. There's little point in continuing the dialog.

I will respect your opinion and only am posting because I want to make it clear. I worked for the Democratic party for a few years up north, and have been politically active for many years and have NEVER been negative on any candidate...disagree yes..negative no....Until this election.

I also, because of a few posts and pm's want to say again that RACE has nothing to do with my opinion...not one single thing.

I sincerely from the bottom of my heart hope I am wrong in this regard./..I cannot tell you how much !

I am not normally a negative person I suppose is the message

Originally Posted by Bucco

I will respect your opinion and only am posting because I want to make it clear. I worked for the Democratic party for a few years up north, and have been politically active for many years and have NEVER been negative on any candidate...disagree yes..negative no....Until this election.

I also, because of a few posts and pm's want to say again that RACE has nothing to do with my opinion...not one single thing.

I sincerely from the bottom of my heart hope I am wrong in this regard./..I cannot tell you how much !

I am not normally a negative person I suppose is the message

i can live with that response. i am still undecided who to vote for, although i will say i am leaning heavily with Obama and Biden.. i am a Regist. Republican and do not like him selecting Palin, i thought in my mind wrong choice it was done since Obama didnt select Clinton. If he had taken Romney he might have my vote. But espcially after hearing Palin's camp make him out to be hanging with a terrorist every day deal, they most diffinently lost my vote. That was wrong, and gos show how desprate they are. Again my opionion only. Now there are alot more reasons why i will vote that way, but not the place to let it out. Thanks