You FORGOT the NAMES BUSH, BUSH, CHILVE, TEMPTLETON, MCCAIN...

Another question:

Is this not factual?


US News

If this is not factual, and can be proven such, I will gladly appologize.

reply to post by pluckynoonez

---

Watching that reminded me of the Michael Richards meltdown, rather uncomfortable to watch IMHO.

I see where you are coming from, but here is the truth: Obama has some casual association with one person who was sympathetic to certain domestic terrorists.

You are defining "friend" and "terrorist" in a way that is somewhat non-standard, hyperbolic in fact, in order to emphasize a point.

An associate is someone you know. A friend is someone you like. A terrorist is someone who performs violent acts to generate terror. A sympathizer is someone who agrees with someone else.

I can see that you are angry. But ask yourself, is this anger based on anything real? Or is it just something that is being generated in order to meet someone else's objective?

[edit on 6-10-2008 by Buck Division]

reply to post by darkangel831

---

What does that have to do with Obama? So someone who Obama once knew in the past had some involvement with terrorists? That has nothing to do with Obama.

This is just like when they smeared Obama for Reverend Right. IT ALMOST WORKED.

It will be interesting to see how voters react to this. Will they accept it as fact and believe that Obama is a terrorist or will they refuse to accept more of this BS?

Statements like these are slanderous and cannot be proven true. They are nothing but heated accusations that take away from the current crisis we have at hand with our economy.

SO Obama blow up people! I get it now!

Thanks!

reply to post by TheRooster

---

Really? The crew loved it and Doocy, the Catholic, was sweating. I thought it was brilliant.

reply to post by Buck Division

---

Buck, I got ya. I work my you know what off and don't really have time to research everything I read so I don't really put much faith in any of it. Its why I come on ATS so often. The guy that sent me the email HATES McCain, I just found it interesting and was wondering what the OP thougth.

If this was actually written by this woman, I wonder what drives her fear, know what I mean?

reply to post by pluckynoonez

---

IMHO Brad took it right to the edge. Don't get me wrong, I love insult comics, but it just seems like... Maybe I should watch it again, maybe I missed something.

edited to add: Well, I'm a practicing Catholic, perhaps that was it.

[edit on 10/6/2008 by TheRooster]

Yes I have a cooment on that.
"News" STATIONS SHOULDN'T BE SMEARING ANY POLITICIAN. they are to "report" the news, not try to explain, distort, make up, the news.
They also should remain impartial on political issues.

Folks, we don't have real news media anymore if we ever did.

it has always been biased.

reply to post by Buck Division

---

You are sooo right. I have turned from a bubbly personality, everything is ok and love everyone to a bitter woman. A hag.
A witch.
I am now jaded.
Thanks to this world.

It doesn't matter if it is factual or not. Please follow me....

What matters here is whether Obama supports domestic terrorism.

You are implying that he does, by taking one tiny snapshot. It is an anecdotal type of argument that doesn't show any sort of pattern, but is quite agreeable to speculation of the most negative kind.

For example, I can say "John is a worthless alchoholic. I've seen him in a bar several times drinking heavily, and I saw him buying a six pack at the grocery yesterday." But the truth is, John is not an alchoholic, rarely drinks in bars or at home, and is not worthless at all. But I've smeared him anyway.

What I would say would be convincing would be some statement, directly by Obama, indicating his views. There just isn't any evidence in your statement about those views, and this anecdote is just designed to fill people with anger and hatred.

Why? To what end? Obviously, because it improves McCain's chances of being elected. It is manipulation.

Edit: Pesky quotes...

[edit on 6-10-2008 by Buck Division]

I agree with you. The 24 hour news cycle has also played into everybody's fears as well. About the only fair and balanced news available anymore is the naked news on Playboy. Well I think its fair and balanced, I watch it with the volume down.

The problem is that the entire line of ACCUSATION depend upon speculation.

If guilt by association was a crime I would be in the can for life.

Actually I think this JUG PARTY is in reaction to the polls... PALIN turns off indies and
Mccain is like an autistic flee with his knee jerks...

Right now OBAMA has a solid 264 out off 270 -
This may change, but Mccain is circling the drain and the best bet is to take Obama
on the ride and prey Obama flushes first.

The funny thing is that Mccain did not learn from CLINTON...

This is a rehash of the primaries, timing wise.

My guess is that Mccain is gonna really mess up with this tactic.
The strategy as a whole is not fluid and can be interpreted as the cheek that cried wolf.

OBAMA will likely spin this as MCCAIN is trying to shift focus off of the economy.

reply to post by Buck Division

---

Perhaps I can work out your reply, as your formatting was confusing..

I implied nothing.

I asked the question and received more deflection.

The article shows association, I asked if it was factual.

If the associations are innocent, why is every Obama supporter afraid of them?

Why the call to "not watch" a channel that is discussing them?

does anyone know what the result was on the "obama is not a citizen" law suit?

Another question:

Is any of this relevent?


WND

Are not the associations of a possible future president important?

Yeah -- fixed that. Thanks.



There was a clear implication to me that Obama is friends with a terrorist. You may not have meant that. Maybe I misinterpreted?



Not sure what you mean by "deflection". I thought I gave you a clear response. But the formatting was kind of screwy, so maybe it wasn't clear.



Sounds like it is factual to me. If it isn't factual, then it is a malicious lie, and I don't think McCain or his staff is malicious. They are just manipulative. (Yeah -- it is true of both sides, and not just McCain.)

What I was trying to respond to was that it really doesn't matter whether it was factual or not. What I was saying is that you can't reach any conclusions from the article regarding Obama's viewpoint on whether domestic terrorism was justified or Bill Ayers is a good guy. There isn't any info there to support that type of conclusion.



Okay -- that is purely speculative, which is what I was saying is the problem. You are jumping to a negative conclusion by making an assumption. I think Obama supporters are irritated by something they see is non-issue related and distorted, and a real time waster. I can't speak for everyone, but I suspect that is the situation you are perceiving as "fear" -- Obama supporters are being defensive -- quite different from fearful -- but they may appear similar.



Don't take it seriously. It is clear to me that the OP was speaking in a joking manner. Clearly people are free to watch whatever. I think the OP was just cleverly drawing attention to Fox News bias, which is the subject of this thread IMO.

So anyway, a good debate!

reply to post by darkangel831

---

YA we should!

reply to post by Buck Division

---

Actually an OUTSTANDING debate!!!

The point I am making is that anyone with any common sense at all, that aspires to the most important job, arguably in the world, would be more selective in his associations....

I also don't have a problem with exposing those associations on either side.. I think they sign up for that when they run for the office.

Just seems pretty sloppy if it is truly not of a suspicious nature...

I for one don't see a lot of difference in either candidate. I fail to see how the election of either one will make such a big difference in any of our lives.