FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


The guilt-by-association game





handfleisch
If Obama's a radical anti-American terrorist, then McCain's a fascist, anti-Semitic terrorist.

McCain is using Palin to make the new attacks on Obama, using the right wing talking point that Obama is guilty due to his acquaintance with a former member of the terrorist organization Weather Underground (who's now a college professor).

It's a dumb move, since by the same standards McCain could be called a Fascist Terrorist, since he once sat on the board of the U.S. Council for World Freedom. Those of us who have kept up with the right wing over the years remember this as a far right organization that actually aided illegal wars around the world, resulting in the deaths of countless civilians. In other words, a state-sponsored terrorist organization.

Now, I would not call McCain a fascist terrorist. But if he is going to try to use that tactic against Obama, it might come back to haunt him, since unlike Obama, his contacts to this organization are much deeper than a casual acquaintance, and the organization itself is much more serious.

Watch it being discussed on Meet the Press:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G8C4Y93Ugk

Quote:
PAUL BEGALA:
And I think Governor Palin here is making a strategic mistake. This guilt by association path is going to be trouble ultimately for the McCain campaign. You know, you can go back, I have written a book about McCain, I had a dozen researchers go through him, I didn’t even put this in the book. But John McCain sat on the board of a very right-wing organization, it was the U.S. Council for World Freedom, it was chaired by a guy named John Singlaub, who wound up involved in the Iran contra scandal. It was an ultra conservative, right-wing group. The Anti-Defamation League, in 1981 when McCain was on the board, said this about this organization. It was affiliated with the World Anti-Communist League – the parent organization – which ADL said “has increasingly become a gathering place, a forum, a point of contact for extremists, racists and anti-Semites.”

Now, that's not John McCain, I don't think he is that. But you know, the problem is that a lot of people know John McCain’s record better than Governor Palin. And he does not want to play guilt by association or this thing could blow up in his face.
crdowner
I think McCain has made quite a few mistakes last in his campaign. I have my concerns with both of our presidential options. I personally think Obama is a great speaker but I have not seen anything from him to make me think he would make a great or even good president. I am concerned that people are opting for a candidate just because he gives good speeches.

I like McCain slightly more than Obama but as my partner keeps reminding me, Palin could become president. I do not dislike Palin but I do not think she is ready or qualified to be president either.

I wish Hillary had gotten the nomination. I would have voted for her and not felt bad about it.
jwellsy
Is Barrack Hussein more likely to support Isreal or Iran?
handfleisch
Quote:
Is Barrack Hussein more likely to support Isreal or Iran?

uh, what? Are you joking?
Bikerman
Well, if you actually mean 'is Obama less likely to go to war with Iran than McCain' then my observation as an outsider would be 'yes'.
Moonspider
Bikerman wrote:
Well, if you actually mean 'is Obama less likely to go to war with Iran than McCain' then my observation as an outsider would be 'yes'.


Less likelihood of war is definitely good. However, my problem with Senator Obama is that he comes across publicly as too hesitant to go to war, even going as far as to say at one point that he would never consider using nuclear weapons under any circumstances. By acting and speaking in such a manner publicly he is damaging deterrence (what little we have in this post Cold War world of 4th Generation conflict). Thus, I believe he actually makes it more likely that an enemy will try him (just as Senator Biden recently said).

He's not coming across as a good poker player.

Respectfully,
M
rmrueger
Agreed, but, the theory of deterrence is only practical in a situation where the opposing force can be seen as rational, in fundamental nature. Suicidal or psychopathic opponents may not be deterred by either forms of deterrence, and in my opinion, the current enemy of the United States is not the rational citizen, but the “brainwashed” youth which is taught that by sacrifice he will be purified and accepted in heaven.
Secondly, diplomatic misunderstandings and/or opposing political ideologies may lead to escalating mutual perceptions of threat. As in, the child which is raised in a culture where western civilization has always been a presence, or “threat” his escalated violence may not be an attack in his view, but a retaliatory attack from the sights he has witnessed.

I honestly do not believe that he would be such opposed to conflict, if a threat is unavoidable, I believe he was just over emphasizing his stance to be seen as the "anti bush view" to capture more votes.
Bikerman
Moonspider wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Well, if you actually mean 'is Obama less likely to go to war with Iran than McCain' then my observation as an outsider would be 'yes'.


Less likelihood of war is definitely good. However, my problem with Senator Obama is that he comes across publicly as too hesitant to go to war, even going as far as to say at one point that he would never consider using nuclear weapons under any circumstances. By acting and speaking in such a manner publicly he is damaging deterrence (what little we have in this post Cold War world of 4th Generation conflict). Thus, I believe he actually makes it more likely that an enemy will try him (just as Senator Biden recently said).

He's not coming across as a good poker player.

Respectfully,
M

I'll defer on the general point, since I obviously haven't heard or seen as much from either candidate as most US citizens will have done. I think, however, that on the specific point of Iran there is next to no chance that either candidate would actually go to war and that McCain's rhetoric on the issue is recognised by most people as bluster. Iran is not like Iraq - the US would be very foolish to take on Iran in any ground war and, as we have seen in other conflicts, you don't win a war without significant troops on the ground. Certainly the feeling over here is that the US is bluffing for position. Now, bluffing on a bad hand can be even more dangerous than folding on a good one...
liljp617
jwellsy wrote:
Is Barrack Hussein more likely to support Isreal or Iran?


Obviously Israel as he's said many times. -.- You people just don't give up do you lol...for the love of all that is good in this world, GIVE UP THE IDEA HE'S A SECRET TERRORIST. You look like a moron.


We should support neither of them to the extent we support Israel considering 13% of our ENTIRE foreign aid goes to Israel alone costing US tax payers over $134 billion.
jwellsy
Barrack Hussien is well schooled in Hudna, the art of negotiating with an enemy purely to obtain their concessions without any long term oligations. It's perfectly acceptable to lie to infidels.

His Muslim heritage is impossible to erase.
Bikerman
jwellsy wrote:
Barrack Hussien is well schooled in Hudna, the art of negotiating with an enemy purely to obtain their concessions without any long term oligations. It's perfectly acceptable to lie to infidels.
LOL...so is any politician worth the name - that is what politicians do, have you not noticed?
liljp617
jwellsy wrote:
Barrack Hussien is well schooled in Hudna, the art of negotiating with an enemy purely to obtain their concessions without any long term oligations. It's perfectly acceptable to lie to infidels.

His Muslim heritage is impossible to erase.



liljp617 wrote:
You people just don't give up do you lol...



And................................................the answer is a clear NO!

You have a way with comedy.
roxys_art
crdowner wrote:
I think McCain has made quite a few mistakes last in his campaign. I have my concerns with both of our presidential options. I personally think Obama is a great speaker but I have not seen anything from him to make me think he would make a great or even good president. I am concerned that people are opting for a candidate just because he gives good speeches.

I like McCain slightly more than Obama but as my partner keeps reminding me, Palin could become president. I do not dislike Palin but I do not think she is ready or qualified to be president either.

I wish Hillary had gotten the nomination. I would have voted for her and not felt bad about it.


I am not fond of either candidate. McCain has made quite a few mistakes, and he just doesn't carry himself very well while sticking up for what he believes and his policies. He seems rather confused about his own policies and that, quite frankly, worries me alot.

Obama is obviously very good at BSing. There's really not a better way to put it. Give him a subject, and he can make it sound positive. This obviously is troublesome because I like when people tell the truth, especially when that person is in "charge of the free world".

Both have policies I like, and policies I dislike. As of right now, I am still undecided on who I am voting for. However, it most likely will not make much of a difference since I live in Nebraska...a historically Republican state.
roxys_art
crdowner wrote:
I think McCain has made quite a few mistakes last in his campaign. I have my concerns with both of our presidential options. I personally think Obama is a great speaker but I have not seen anything from him to make me think he would make a great or even good president. I am concerned that people are opting for a candidate just because he gives good speeches.

I like McCain slightly more than Obama but as my partner keeps reminding me, Palin could become president. I do not dislike Palin but I do not think she is ready or qualified to be president either.

I wish Hillary had gotten the nomination. I would have voted for her and not felt bad about it.


I am not fond of either candidate. McCain has made quite a few mistakes, and he just doesn't carry himself very well while sticking up for what he believes and his policies. He seems rather confused about his own policies and that, quite frankly, worries me alot.

Obama is obviously very good at BSing. There's really not a better way to put it. Give him a subject, and he can make it sound positive. This obviously is troublesome because I like when people tell the truth, especially when that person is in "charge of the free world".

Both have policies I like, and policies I dislike. As of right now, I am still undecided on who I am voting for. However, it most likely will not make much of a difference since I live in Nebraska...a historically Republican state.
roxys_art
Although, now that I think about it, maybe if the primary candidates appear to be a "tie" (as in my case), the deciding factor should be who their vice-president candidate is.

Palin vs. Biden.

While Palin seems personable, she just doesn't seem qualified. She did hold her own on one of the vice-president debates I saw, however, alot of the time questions seem to catch her off guard because she doesn't really know. She always seems nervous while the center of attention.

Biden, on the other hand, knows his stuff. He's been around for a long time. He knows the issues and knows what is going on in the political realm. My only problem with him is that he never seems to finish a thought. It just seems to me that he has so much information in his head that he jumps from one thought to the next, without ever really finishing. That's not a huge deal to me; I would rather have someone know too much information than too little information.

So, I definitely think the best vice-president is Biden. He's established, been around a looooong time, and knows what the issues are and how the Obama/Biden campaign hope to address these issues.

On further review, I don't think this "tiebreaker" helped much though. It just scares me knowing that if something happened to McCain, that Palin would be the president. Yikes. That really scares me....
handfleisch
Thanks for your thoughts, Roxys, though the thread is about guilt-by-association and related smear tactics more than analysis of vice presidential suitability.
Related topics
Palin Article
Socom 3, PS2 Online game
Bowling is a "killer" game
Countering Computer Game Addiction: Step Away from the Scree
Favourite Staratagy Game.
Japanese Association Condemns History Textbooks
Java Game
Can games grow beyond the hard-core set?
witch game is better
boiling point - do you really play with that scrappy game?
Not humor, but a play-by-forum game.
Web Based Game
Favourite game? (OFFICIAL THREAD)
RoberT HorrY fLyin.. ..::photos::.. 5th game at finaL series
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.