T1B

JayDuck wrote:These aren't the droids you're looking for

These aren't the droids we're looking for mvscal.

Tom In VA wrote:

JayDuck wrote:These aren't the droids you're looking for

These aren't the droids we're looking for mvscal.

I guess that's your way of saying that McCain's involvement with Keating doesn't matter and it's all trivial benign stuff.

JayDuck wrote:

I guess that's your way of saying that McCain's involvement with Keating doesn't matter and it's all trivial benign stuff.

That's my way of saying that McCain's involvement with Keating doesn't matter and it's all trivial benign stuff.

OH GOD!!!!! McCain will dance the two step with decrepit Red Viet Cong!! Surely we're fukked.

That maniacal look in his eyes, clearly, he has plans for charlie.

mvscal wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:Seriously - I think we need a different approach - strong, intelligent, principled, and fresh. Obama seems to fit the bill for me best at this point.

Then you are a fucking fool. Straight up. Obama is the dumbest motherfucker who has ever run for President.

Can I get ruling here? Does race trump party affiliation, or vice versa?

This year's election is fairly convenient for most Republicans, given your candidate is an old white guy with a storied military career and a long tenure in public office going up against a young 'groid with no military experience and a limited amount of time in office. Yeah, I know...McCain isn't the ideal Republican because he doesn't lean far enough to the right, but he's still good enough to vote for over a ~gasp~ black Dem.

But what if things were the other way around? I know this goes beyond even the most outlandish fantasy, but suppose the Republican nominee was smart, experienced, well-spoken, conservative to the core...and black, while the Democrat was a trusty ol' whitey? (Not Whitey, just to clarify.) Could y'all on the right vote for a black Republican, or would you simply stay home on election day? Would your candidate still be just a stupid n|gger, or a standard-bearer for the GOP?

I don't expect serious or truthful replies, btw.

PSUFAN wrote:

OH GOD!!!!! McCain will dance the two step with decrepit Red Viet Cong!! Surely we're fukked.

http://www.usvetdsp.com/manchuan.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh and by the way the primary source of my disillusionment with John McCain. I don't understand his attitude towards them either.

mvscal wrote: The only "involvement" McCain had with Keating was that Keating was a major contributor and large employer in Arizona. There was no evidence that McCain improperly influenced the investigation into Keating.

Keating contributed more to McCain than any other of the Keating Five. Additionally McCain and his family made a bunch of trips to Keating's pad in the Bahamas, paid for by Keating that McCain didn't disclose as he was required to under the rules of being a member of the House of Representatives.

Yes, nothing was proven and McCain was found to be the least blameworthy of any of the Keating Five. Which is still a step below Obama's involvement with Aeyrs as there has not even been a suggestion of Ayers doing any wrongdoing since Obama has known him.

Smackie Chan wrote:But what if things were the other way around? I know this goes beyond even the most outlandish fantasy, but suppose the Republican nominee was smart, experienced, well-spoken, conservative to the core...and black, while the Democrat was a trusty ol' whitey? (Not Whitey, just to clarify.) Could y'all on the right vote for a black Republican, or would you simply stay home on election day? Would your candidate still be just a stupid n|gger, or a standard-bearer for the GOP?

I don't expect serious or truthful replies, btw.

Well I'll give you one. Had the Republicans fielded a black candidate like a Michael Steele, or a black with a conservative slant like Walt. E. Williams or Thomas Sowell, etc.. etc.. I am still a big Powell fan.

I'd vote for them in a heartbeat. What would be fun then is to watch the Democratic party engage in un-encumbered electronic lynching by way of media, questioning their "blackness", throwing around terms like "House Negro" etc.. etc..

Tony Rezko ? There is no Tony Rezko here.

Tom In VA kinda wrote:What would be fun then is to watch the opposition party engage in un-encumbered electronic lynching by way of media, questioning their "blackness"

Yeah, that is kinda fun to watch.

mvscal wrote:

JayDuck wrote:Yes, nothing was proven and McCain was found to be the least blameworthy of any of the Keating Five. Which is still a step below Obama's involvement with Aeyrs

Is it a step below Obama's involvement with Tony Rezko?

Honestly, I'd say its fairly similar.

Smackie Chan wrote:

Tom In VA kinda wrote:What would be fun then is to watch the opposition party engage in un-encumbered electronic lynching by way of media, questioning their "blackness"

Yeah, that is kinda fun to watch.

Oooooh a "fixed that for ya" .



Pretty sneaky bro.

mvscal wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:I know this goes beyond even the most outlandish fantasy,

No, it doesn't.

Think you'll live to see the day?

Tom In VA wrote:Oooooh a "fixed that for ya" .

Yeah, I know. It was either that or type out a buncha words, and I'm feeling lazy today.

Probably. The rush is on within the RNC to court more and more blacks within the ranks.


As for "seeing the day" when a true fiscal conservative actually gets elected. That might be another story.

mvscal wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:Think you'll live to see the day?

Sure. All they need is the requisite candidate.

Like who? Is he (or she) among us today?

OK, but if this hypothetical darkie were known to you, would he/she still be considered an Alabama porch monkey who should be forcibly sterilized before being involuntary shipped "back" to The Gambia in the cargo hold of a leaky boat?

Tom In VA wrote:

_Porter_ wrote: I find no difference in Obama's camp claiming that criticism against him is "racist" when Bush's cronies declared critism of him to be "unpatriotic" for about five years.

Bullshit. We are at war. Compare pictures of FDR, Truman, and any other President during a time of war to the ones they went out of their way to be portrayed as noble, thoughtful leaders. In some cases through the use of executive orders "cleansing" the news and whatsuch.

When your own media can be used to fuel the enemies propaganda, word for word. What do you call it ? Constructive criticism is one thing, the destructive nature of the attacks on Bush is another thing.

I suppose Hanoi Jane was a true patriot then. Meanwhile, we're going into an election year where it's a dude with known left wing radical terrorist sympathies and connections vs. a guy who when given the opportunity to bail on his countrymen, didn't.

The major networks all portrayed Presidents in a fairly positive light right up until they saw "Hardcopy" and their ilk get solid ratings for doing a tabloid news show. It's been downhill ever since.

I was speaking specifically about those in the early part of the war who dared question anything that Bush did being slapped with the "unpatriotic" tag. Sorry if your short-term memory has taken a hit of late, but it was only about 5 years ago. Once the media shifted into second gear on their anti-everything-Bush rants, I completely agree that it was borderline aiding and abetting the enemy. Shit, they did everything but fly over US cities dropping anti-Bush policy leaflets.

The daily questioning of every single policy, along with the high-ratings they got from posting daily body bag counts (a lesson learned in Vietnam), was nothing short of disgusting. I have no problem with solid investigative journalism that exposes graft and corruption, especially when we're pumping billions into the country, it's just the generalizations that morale is at an all time low, we're losing the war, they don't want us there, and that type of thing that really pisses me off. The American media virtually as a whole has done an outstanding job of pointing out the negative aspects of the war, while reporting damn near none of the postive achievements. Meanwhile, they have no problem convincing the American sheeple that any American death overseas is a wasted life, regardless of the mission or circumstances, and then cry when people say there's a liberal media bias.

mvscal wrote:It's a hard sell when you're running against demagogues who promise "free" stuff for everyone.

$$$$

mvscal wrote:

JayDuck wrote:Yes, nothing was proven and McCain was found to be the least blameworthy of any of the Keating Five. Which is still a step below Obama's involvement with Aeyrs

Is it a step below Obama's involvement with Tony Rezko?

It's pretty common knowledge that the only reason McCain's name was brought into the Keating affair was because Howell Heflin demanded a republican be included so it wouldn't be an all democRat scandal.

_Porter_ wrote: The major networks all portrayed Presidents in a fairly positive light right up until they saw "Hardcopy" and their ilk get solid ratings for doing a tabloid news show. It's been downhill ever since.

I was speaking specifically about those in the early part of the war who dared question anything that Bush did being slapped with the "unpatriotic" tag. Sorry if your short-term memory has taken a hit of late, but it was only about 5 years ago. Once the media shifted into second gear on their anti-everything-Bush rants, I completely agree that it was borderline aiding and abetting the enemy. Shit, they did everything but fly over US cities dropping anti-Bush policy leaflets.

The daily questioning of every single policy, along with the high-ratings they got from posting daily body bag counts (a lesson learned in Vietnam), was nothing short of disgusting. I have no problem with solid investigative journalism that exposes graft and corruption, especially when we're pumping billions into the country, it's just the generalizations that morale is at an all time low, we're losing the war, they don't want us there, and that type of thing that really pisses me off. The American media virtually as a whole has done an outstanding job of pointing out the negative aspects of the war, while reporting damn near none of the postive achievements. Meanwhile, they have no problem convincing the American sheeple that any American death overseas is a wasted life, regardless of the mission or circumstances, and then cry when people say there's a liberal media bias.

Solid as a rock.

mvscal wrote:I'll vote for any fiscal conservative, I don't give a fuck what color he is or what his party affiliation is.

I'm having a little trouble with this one. You claim to be a fiscal conservative, yet you fully support throwing trillions of dollars down the sinkhole that is Iraq. What gives?

Papa Willie wrote:Hitler never attacked us either. Why did we fuck with him?

I suppose explaining that Hitler declared war on the United States would be over your head?

Papa Willie wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:Hitler never attacked us either. Why did we fuck with him?

I suppose explaining that Hitler declared war on the United States would be over your head?

Saddam declared Jihad on us.

Not until after we had begun the invasion of his country in an effort to remove him from power. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/featu ... m_4-1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hitler, OTOH, declared war on us within a day of our declaration of war against Japan, and long before a single American troop had arrived in the European theater.

Sudden Sam wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:What's the problem ?


Sincerely,
Howard Cosell

Don't know why, but I was thinking about that incident just the other day. I remember watching that game and when Cosell said "Look at that monkey run" or whatever...it was like, UH-OH! Jaws dropping everywhere.

Here was a guy who seemed to have no prejudices at all and had done more to promote blacks than anyone of his era in TV. And he totally blew it.

Actually, though, if you saw the Redskin (I think) running the ball, he was moving like a monkey. No racial overtones intended...you could see why Cosell said it.

It was not racial at all. He has also previously referred to Mike Adamle as a little monkey. I didn’t think much of it when the words came out of his mouth, but it was a big deal the next day.

A similar incident that drew no notice whatsoever involved Chris Schenkel who did college football for ABC. I believe it was a prime-time game in the late 60’s that involved Houston who at the time had a wide receiver named Elmo Wright.

Elmo was one of the very first (maybe THE very first) players to do a touchdown dance. Schenkel was constantly reminding us that if Elmo scored we were going to see his little touchdown dance.

Finally Elmo got loose and scored. Schenkel was beside himself. “There it is! There’s that happy jig!”

Sudden Sam wrote:Here was a guy who seemed to have no prejudices at all and had done more to promote blacks than anyone ... And he totally blew it.

You talkin' about me?

Sin,

Al Campanis

Yeah get real, Terry. It's only slightly over half a trillion down the sinkhole. Geez.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tom In VA wrote:We are at war.

Really?

Name one country that Congress issued a declaration of war against in the last 50 years.



But hey, what's a little Separation of Powers between friends, right?

Well, we're at war agains drugs, right?

Oh, and Terror.

Just ask the Chimp in Chief.

Mikey wrote:
Just ask the Chimp in Chief.

And therein lies the problem...


It would be nice if we had a CiC that had actually read the Constitution that he swore to uphold.

It would be nice if we had a CinC who actually could read the Constitution.

mvscal wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:Name one country that Congress issued a declaration of war against in the last 50 years.

Please reference the legal source which defines the form a declaration of war must take.

Thanks in advance.

Defining who can do it, isn't enough for you?

mvscal wrote:
Why do you even bother to participate in these discussions when you are so pitifully uninformed? Are you trying to make yourself look stupid?

I'll take that as a "no".

mvscal wrote:Congress did authorize the President to use military force against Iraq.

Which they had no Constitutional authority whatsoever to do.

mvscal wrote:Congress did authorize the President to use military force against Iraq.

Yeah - what a motherfucking charade that was. Truly one of the most shameful episodes in this decade.

mvscal wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:Yeah get real, Terry. It's only slightly over half a trillion down the sinkhole. Geez.

So we've spent about 500 billion over the last five years during the same period of time our economy has generated about 65 trillion dollars.

And yet oddly enough, the national debt is approaching 10 trillion, and goes up by about 1.57 billion per day.

Funny how that works.

mvscal wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:

mvscal wrote:Congress did authorize the President to use military force against Iraq.

Which they had no Constitutional authority whatsoever to do.

Link?

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Since you've never read it before, I'll help you out -- the pertinent information is under Article 1, Section 8. Article 1 defines which powers Congress has in the Separation scheme.

While you're reading that wonderful yet ignored document, you might notice that Article 2, which defines the Powers of the Executive Branch, that no mention is made of the President having any power to make war declarations. Strange oversight by the Founders, eh?

mvscal wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:And yet oddly enough, the national debt is approaching 10 trillion, and goes up by about 1.57 billion per day.

Funny how that works.

There really isn't anything funny about bullshit numbers.

Link?