Sarah Palin

[Liar]

He's not a witch doctor, he's Christian who happens to be from somewhere in Africa.

The reason he's called a witch doctor is because he branded a woman in his home town a witch, rallied up a mob and drove her from her home.

I guess that WAS pretty christian, in the 17:th century.

 

[SlickTony]

Does that mean if McCain wins he'll fix our problems with voodoo economics?

 

[epiphany65]

The reason he's called a witch doctor is because he branded a woman in his home town a witch, rallied up a mob and drove her from her home.

I guess that WAS pretty christian, in the 17:th century.

I consider a witch doctor to be a type of shaman who practices a pagan or nature-worshiping religion. Accusing someone of witchcraft doesn't make one a witch doctor, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Liar]

I consider a witch doctor to be a type of shaman who practices a pagan or nature-worshiping religion. Accusing someone of witchcraft doesn't make one a witch doctor, as far as I'm concerned.

Aye. I know. But that is the reason he's called a witch doctor. Even if the reason is incorrect.

I call him a nutcase.

 

[epiphany65]

Aye. I know. But that is the reason he's called a witch doctor. Even if the reason is incorrect.

I call him a nutcase.

Okay... weird definition, but at least I know what they mean now.

 

[epiphany65]

Yeah. He believes in witchcraft. A lot of African Christians believe in witchcraft. A lot of fundamentalist Christians believe in witchcraft too, and Sarah Palin may very well be one of them.

That kind of puts a context jerk on the whole idea of Fundamentalist Christianity, doesn't it? Not to mention the idea of maybe having a president who believes in witchcraft?

Or do we already have one?

It reminds me of people who go to those charismatic preachers to have demons exorcised because they have insomnia or are drug addicts. It's their choice, but I find it weird at best.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box - wasn't it you who insisted we judge the candidates by the people they choose to associate with? Following your own logic, Palin's associations with religious wackos would indicate that she herself is a religious wacko.

If it's not mudslinging to look at Obama's past associations, but it is mud slinging to look at Palin's, wouldn't this be considered hypocrisy? Please correct me if I'm using the wrong term. Thank you.

No, it was not I who called for looking at associations. It was those who say such things as "Bush'e third term" and names such as "McBush".

 

[Boxlicker101]

No, Box. It's not mudslinging. It's true and it's relevant. Here's the video of Sarah Palin's mini-exorcism (being rid of "witches"):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj-on3kfWuE

Nice vice presidential material you've got there, Box. Nothing remotely scary about Sarah Palin with the nuclear codes, nossir.

This is a videotape of Sarah Palin letting herself be the center of a Christian rite. I expect that Obama's church has done much the same thing, although we don't have any videotapes of them.

 

[Boxlicker101]

You know, all kidding aside, this McCain/Palin tactic really concerns me. I guess McCain has to do something to divert attention from the state of the economy.

What a fucking coward.


Rising attacks against Obama stoke fears of violence, accusations of racism

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10691384?source=most_viewed

By Mary Anne Ostrom

Barack Obama assailed the Republican ticket on Friday for "stoking anger and division'' after a remarkably hot-tempered week that saw searing attacks from John McCain and Sarah Palin at rallies while their supporters shouted "terrorist" and "traitor" and even "off with his head'' at the mention of the Democratic candidate's name.

"It's easy to rile up a crowd by stoking anger and division," Obama said Friday during a stop in Ohio. "The American people are not looking for someone who will divide this country, they are looking for someone who will lead it."

He spoke after McCain released a biting new ad, once again linking Obama to a 1960s radical, only this time with harsher language, saying Obama had "lied" about his association with Bill Ayers. A week ago, Palin used the connection to claim Obama "pals around with terrorists."

The anger seen this week at some GOP rallies has been so palpable that respected CNN correspondent, David Gergen, a former adviser to Republican and Democratic presidents, warned on the air that such "free-floating sort of whipping-around anger "... could really lead to some violence. I think we're not far from that.''

Late Friday, after broad criticism for not stepping in earlier, McCain tried to tamp down tempers but was booed by his own supporters when, in an abrupt switch from raising questions about Obama's character, he described Obama as a "decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."

The switch underscores the Republicans' treacherous high-wire after an inflammatory week when the McCain campaign began focusing on Obama's character and judgment.

In recent days, the campaign launched a series of searing stump speeches and ads that some experts call racially tinged. It also spills over to terrorist fears, they say. While the McCain campaign says it doesn't condone emphasizing Obama's middle name Hussein, speakers at McCain rallies have used it this week. Others point to McCain ads, which earlier called Obama "dangerously unprepared," now simply call him "dangerous'' and the constant linking of Obama to Ayers. This comes after months of false Internet rumors that Obama is a Muslim and not an American citizen.

Both campaigns are using words and images to perpetuate stereotypes with voters, say communications experts. And it may work, they say, especially during a chaotic economic time when voters are more susceptible to fear campaigning.

When McCain calls Obama "too risky for America" and Palin says he's "not a man who sees America as you see it," some think they are playing on racist fears that the nation's first African-American presidential nominee is too different.

When Obama talks about McCain's "erratic behavior" and says he's "out of touch," some think he's playing on fears that McCain is too old to be president.

McCain campaign attacks on Obama have "gone beyond the level of code words,'' said Shanto Iyengar, Stanford University professor of communications and political science who has studied racial attitudes in elections. "I call it a racist appeal to identity. Do you want to vote for someone who doesn't look like you or have a name like yours? In America, racial identity tends to trump other forms of identity. It's the most salient basis for making the distinction between us and them."

It's not about race, it's about getting voters to take another look at Obama "and fill in the blanks,'' said Bill Whalen, a former speech writer for Republicans and now a fellow at the Hoover Institution. McCain is hoping to take the voters' eyes off economic problems, where polls show he's weak, and move the attention to Obama's ties to Chicago associates, notably Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground, which the FBI labeled a "domestic terrorist group," as well as convicted felon Antoin "Tony" Rezko and the controversial black minister the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

"Dangerous" and "too risky" are not code words for racism, Whalen argued. "The Democrats in 1980 said Ronald Reagan couldn't be trusted, he was dangerous because was too much of a cowboy and would get us in a war with the Soviet Union," Whalen said.

San Jose Republican Tony Ochinero, a McCain backer and former Democrat, said he is glad the McCain campaign is encouraging people to "check Obama out."

"I think people have the right to figure out who this guy is and whether he's lying to us'' about his past associates. McCain has tried to play-up Obama's association with Ayers; however, media reports have concluded the relationship was only a casual one.

But as the race hurdles to its Nov. 4 climax, political observers say these words and images will stoke fears, particularly racial ones.

"In a fear environment, what's effective is to draw on fears of racism,'' said Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and the Media at California State University-Sacramento. Such tactics might be particularly effective if McCain wants to shore up support among conservatives and older voters in places like Florida, Virginia and Midwest swing states. And Obama, she contended, is using "code words to show McCain as rickety and old,'' unable to lead a turnaround.

The irony, she added, that for an election about change, the economic crisis may cause some voters to seek the candidate they believe is safest "when everything else is turning upside down. The fear of the different is the flip-flop of change. Change has been the mantra but now people have had way too much change.''

I actually watched the videotape in question. People reacted to the name, "William Ayers", calling him a terrorist, which he was. A good many persons, including myself, think he should be doing a long sentence in a federal penitentiary for the crimes he committed in the Sixties and Seventies, and they were expressing that opinion. Apparently, some thought he should have been hanged as a trsaitor, and I somewhat agree with them.


BTW. If you were to ask Osama Bin Ladin whether or not he is a terrorist, he would say he is not. He believes that he was acting on the orders of Allah. Terrorists, such as him and Ayers seem to think they are above the law, that they have some kind of higher calling that excludes them from the laws of the nation and the world. The Watergate burglars were much the same. They were aware that they were breaking the law, but believed they were performing isuch important work that they were above the law.

ETA: I will admit there are some supporters of McCain who are actually racists, and are more opposed to Obama than favoring McCain. Of course, Obama has racists supporting him too, such as Louis Farrakhan.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I actually watched the videotape in question. People reacted to the name, "William Ayers", calling him a terrorist, which he was. A good many persons, including myself, think he should be doing a long sentence in a federal penitentiary for the crimes he committed in the Sixties and Seventies, and they were expressing that opinion. Apparently, some thought he should have been hanged as a trsaitor, and I somewhat agree with them.


BTW. If you were to ask Osama Bin Ladin whether or not he is a terrorist, he would say he is not. He believes that he was acting on the orders of Allah. Terrorists, such as him and Ayers seem to think they are above the law, that they have some kind of higher calling that excludes them from the laws of the nation and the world. The Watergate burglars were much the same. They were aware that they were breaking the law, but believed they were performing isuch important work that they were above the law.

ETA: I will admit there are some supporters of McCain who are actually racists, and are more opposed to Obama than favoring McCain. Of course, Obama has racists supporting him too, such as Louis Farrakhan.

If you want to get technical, Ayers wasn't a terrorist because he wasn't targeting innocent people. He was trying to damage military infrastructure in order to impair the ability of the United states to conduct war. That makes him a violent anti-war protester, not a terrorist. That's a bit different from setting a bomb off in a market place.

Ayers and me were on the same side in that conflict, though he was more extreme than I was, and though I think his method of protest was stupid, I understand it. A lot of us were engaged in a war with our own government, and some of us used passive resistance, and some of us fought back with weapons, like Ayers did. While I didn't take any violent action, I knew people who did and I didn't turn them in, so I guess I'm guilty of aiding and abetting. Luckily this turned out to be small time stuff and no one was hurt.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Waging war against your own countrymen to help a foreign country? Sounds treasonous by at least one definition of treason. And don't delude yourself. The anti-war movement often directly sided with North Vietnam (remember Jane Fonda and the infamous NVA tank). Since we were at war with North Vietnam, that was a very subversive act.

To blow up government buildings to aid a hostile foreign country? Very immoral, not to mention illegal.

 

[Belegon]

Box, You are embarrassing yourself. Please stop.

To state your case in favor of your candidate is one thing. But that is not the approach you are taking.

You and DP are just throwing stuff out there, no matter how wild. Much of it false and the rest misleading.

You want to make an impact? Talk about policy. Talk about the positives associated with your choice.

All I hear you talking is hate and fear. They lead to the dark side, man. After all these years, you still aren't listening to Yoda?

Little green dude makes sense, man.

 

[Liar]

To blow up government buildings to aid a hostile foreign country? Very immoral, not to mention illegal.

Blowing stuff up is never a good thing. That makes Ayers at least a vandal.

As for supporting a hostile foreign country? Depends on the situation. i don't know the situation well enough to comment.

But you realize that all of this is FUD bullshit, right? Obama didn't meet with a terrorist, he met with a college professor and education board member. That said professor spent his past as a wanted criminal, is irrelevant. If you want to get things done, you work the political scene. of which Ayers now is a part, whether we like it or not.

This is all so bizarre, and a little sad.

 

[Belegon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TgDanmWkg

As someone who is very familiar with how something deafening gets muted by microphones aimed at a specific place... let me assure you, this was LOUD.

Philly, I'm proud of you. And I have to say, I have been a very big critic of Philly sports fans.

Under my real name, I've been quoted in the Philadelphia Enquirer over a football game when they still loved Terrel Owens and BBQ'd on talk radio for my published opinion about a dispute between a Phillie fan and Phil Nevin.

But while I have criticized their direction, I have never doubted their passion.

 

[Happily_Variant]

You want to make an impact? Talk about policy.

*Sorry Sarah P, he was not asking you to comment on your newest quote from Geico.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box, You are embarrassing yourself. Please stop.

To state your case in favor of your candidate is one thing. But that is not the approach you are taking.

You and DP are just throwing stuff out there, no matter how wild. Much of it false and the rest misleading.

You want to make an impact? Talk about policy. Talk about the positives associated with your choice.

All I hear you talking is hate and fear. They lead to the dark side, man. After all these years, you still aren't listening to Yoda?

Little green dude makes sense, man.

Bel, I am not slinging any mud. I have said little about Biden but I have said nothing about Obama except to express my respect and admiration for him. I have chided him for his associations with known, unrepentant terorists, such as Ayers and Dohrn. That isn't slinging mud; that is citing the FBI description of those two. I have also mentioned listening to the racist rants of Rev. Wright for twenty years. Apparently, he agrees with this, because he has now disdavowed the man but, after that long, it seems a bit late now.

I have said that I don't think Obama is ready to be CIC yet, and he has little or no foreign policy experience. Some of the things he has said about his intentions are actually dangerous. The last time we had diplomatic relations with Iran, for instance, they imprisoned the embassy staff.

If you want to read mud being slung, look at the posts of those with whom you agree. They are slinging mud like a fire hose slings water.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The fulminations, recriminations, hair-pulling and garment rending that follow this post are drearily predictable, but I wonder if anyone will even try to challenge a single fact it provides. RA

America's Second Wake-Up Call!
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, October 10, 2008
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308530236252361

In the last 40 years, there have been nine major surveys of editors and reporters who work for national media. The most they ever voted Republican in a national election was 14%; the more common range has been 4% to 7%.

This is one reason why no matter who wins a political debate, the media almost en masse repeatedly tell you their man won. And most voters who don't pay close attention will believe them. It's called coordinated propaganda.

What were the most consistently repeated and strongly asserted slogans you've heard over the last few years? "We're losing in Iraq . . . we must get out . . . it's costing us $10 billion a month we could use here at home . . . we're not any safer . . . the surge won't work."

A year ago, vice presidential candidate Joe Biden opined that we should get out of Iraq immediately and then divide it into three separate countries. This is the sound, seasoned judgment that's supposed to compensate for running mate Barack Obama's youth and complete lack of experience with the military or America's security in a dangerous world!

Well, the surge in Iraq has worked, we are winning decisively and, as a result, now have a new democracy and strong ally in the Mideast. Meanwhile, seven years have passed since 9/11, and we still haven't had another major terrorist attack on our soil.

Yet the media give no credit at all to President Bush, the only president to do something about the terrorist attacks that we had suffered repeatedly beginning in 1992.

With the economy slowing and a weak financial market created solely by our subprime mortgage mess, what do we keep hearing now from the media in hopes the majority will believe it and vote accordingly? "The mess is caused by eight years of failed Bush economic policies, including the tax cuts for the rich that should be rescinded."

This is not the talk of a uniter of people, but rather a separator stirring up class warfare, envy and resentment. It's a stirring-up of hate in an attempt to endlessly criticize, condemn, demean and destroy every opponent.

Do you know the real cause of the out-of-control subprime loan mess that's creating so much fear and hurting every American? It's not something the media or a certain political party wants you to find out. A picture is worth a thousand words, however, and we've made notes of key events on the chart (in the next post) that you can follow as we give you some key facts.

In 1995, President Clinton mandated new regulations that coerced banks to make significantly more subprime loans to inner-city residents previously viewed as unqualified buyers in high-risk areas. Banks were rated on how well they complied and faced big fines if they didn't do what government regulators wanted.

The government's worst decision was allowing and encouraging banks, for the first time, to bundle these subprime loans in giant packages with prime loans. These packages were then sold to other investors as safe because they were government-sponsored by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The first of these government-encouraged packages came to market in 1997. For the banks, they were profitable because they could be sold quickly and thereby absolve the banks of any risk in the loans they made. Many subprimes were variable-rate loans made without down payments or documentation of borrowers' incomes.

The banks could then use the money to make even more of these lower-quality, government-required loans, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought them with virtual abandon.

It evolved into a Big Government pyramid scheme with Democrats in charge of Fannie and Freddie making large political donations to Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama and other politicians who continually defended the anything-goes lending of the two agencies.

In short, this was yet another well-intended, Democrat-supported,government-designed and run program that failed miserably and had the usual unintended consequences.

A few more facts:

• April 2001: The Bush administration's fiscal budget stated that the size of Fannie and Freddie was "potential problem because financial trouble of a large Government-Sponsored Enterprise could cause repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity."

• May 2002: The Office of Management and Budget wanted disclosure and governance principles in Bush's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie and Freddie.

• February 2003: A federal housing oversight report warned that unexpected problems at Fannie Mae could immediately spread into financial sectors.

• September 2003: Treasury Secretary John Snow, in testimony to the House Financial Services Committee, recommended that Congress enact legislation to create new agency to regulate and supervise financial activities of housing-related government entities to set prudent and appropriate minimum capital requirements.

Rep. Frank, the committee's ranking member, strongly disagreed, saying: "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis . . . . The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we'll see in terms of affordable housing."

• February 2004: The president's new budget again highlighted risks of the explosive growth of these government enterprises and the then-low levels of required capital. It also called for the creation of a world class regulator. The administration determined that housing regulators of government agencies lacked the power and stature to meet their responsibilities and should be replaced with a strong new third regulator.

• February 2004: Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, cautioned Congress against taking the strength of financial markets for granted. He too called for reducing the risk by ensuring that housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.

• April 2004: Rep. Frank ignored warnings, accusing the administration of creating an "artificial issue." "People pay their mortgages," he told a group of mortgage bankers. "I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there."

From 2004 to 2008 the Bush administration made 12 more attempts to get Congress to pass legislation to have safer, sounder regulatory oversight of Fannie and Freddie and capital rules. You can see them for yourself on the White House Web site. But here are a couple of examples that show how Democrats resisted:

• July 2005: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rejected legislation on reforming Fannie and Freddie. "While I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that would limit Americans from owning homes and harm our economy in the process," he said.

• August 2007: Sen. Dodd, another Democrat, ignored President Bush's emphatic calls for Congress to pass Fannie and Freddie reform legislation and called for him to immediately reconsider his ill-advised position.

Democrats have become a far-left propaganda party with the lowest-ranked Congress in history. For six years, they have consistently refused to rein in the monumentally risky subprime loans that Clinton Democrats gave birth to.

Yet, voters are blaming Republicans for this crisis and seem to think that a newcomer they know little about, despite his questionable past associates and mentors, can bring us more huge programs. These include one that would socialize the health care system at a time when government-run systems in Canada and Britain are lower in quality and nearly bankrupt.

We will not have another 1929. The chart above shows we are in a 1937-type correction with a 1938-39 perhaps ahead. That's when England's Neville Chamberlain thought he could appease Hitler just by talking to him and getting a signature on a piece of paper that guaranteed "peace in our time."

Today, a new Hitler in Iran says he wants to have similar relations with the U.S. Are terrorists hoping that we will sign a nice agreement that gives Iran another couple of years to develop a nuclear weapon?

Finally, history shows that since World War II, our best results-oriented presidents were Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan. They were much older — in their 60s and 70s — more experienced and made sounder, more productive decisions. The three youngest presidents — Kennedy, Carter and Clinton — all had more problems, particularly with national defense and dealing with dangerous dictators that were threats to America's security.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/images/editimg/issues101308.gif

 

[epiphany65]

Roxanne, your last post reminds me of these lyrics by Joe Jackson:

Stop everything
I think I hear the President
The Pied Piper of the TV screen
Is gonna make it simple
And he's got it all mapped out
And illustrated with cartoons
Too hard for clever folks to understand
They're more used to words like:
Ideology . . .

 

[cloudy]

When I'm President

 

[shereads]

No, it was not I who called for looking at associations. It was those who say such things as "Bush'e third term" and names such as "McBush".

There are types of associations, Box. McCain's association with Bush is substantive: he voted with Bush on more than 95 percent of issues. You either get the distinction and are pretending not to, or you are beyond hope.

Dangerous ideas? How about taking into consideration the Iraq war vote, one of the most disastrous foreign-policy decisions in our country's history. Obama didn't take the bait; he suggested instead that we needed to finish what we had begun in Afghanistan. He was right by every logical argument, and he has been proven right. Period.

Neither has Obama said we should resume full diplomatic relations with Iran. (Another distinction, like types of "associations.") He has realized, after six counterproductive years of the "We aren't going to talk to you" game, that it only made Iran and North Korea more dangerous.

It can't be that difficult a concept to grasp. Even Bush sort of gets it now, as evidenced by the administration's about-face on North Korea.

 

[shereads]

Roxanne, your last post reminds me of these lyrics by Joe Jackson:

Stop everything
I think I hear the President
The Pied Piper of the TV screen
Is gonna make it simple
And he's got it all mapped out
And illustrated with cartoons
Too hard for clever folks to understand
They're more used to words like:
Ideology . . .

Nice.

I see your lyrics and raise you a poem: This one is by John Cleese, formerly of Monty Python. He sent it to MSNBC last week in response to a particularly despicable incident on Fox News:

Ode to Sean Hannity

by John Cleese

Aping urbanity
Oozing with vanity
Plump as a manatee
Faking humanity
Journalistic calamity
Intellectual inanity
Fox Noise insanity
You’re a profanity
Hannity

 

[Boxlicker101]

There are types of associations, Box. McCain's association with Bush is substantive: he voted with Bush on more than 95 percent of issues. You either get the distinction and are pretending not to, or you are beyond hope.

Dangerous ideas? How about taking into consideration the Iraq war vote, one of the most disastrous foreign-policy decisions in our country's history. Obama didn't take the bait; he suggested instead that we needed to finish what we had begun in Afghanistan. He was right by every logical argument, and he has been proven right. Period.

Neither has Obama said we should resume full diplomatic relations with Iran. (Another distinction, like types of "associations.") He has realized, after six counterproductive years of the "We aren't going to talk to you" game, that it only made Iran and North Korea more dangerous.

It can't be that difficult a concept to grasp. Even Bush sort of gets it now, as evidenced by the administration's about-face on North Korea.

W has never been described as McCain's mentor and, in fact, McC was a member of Congress while W was virtually unknown. Are you sure about that 95% figure? I have read 90% being bandied about, and I believe that was too high. For one thing, W has never been a member of Congress, so how can anybody vote with him? BTW, Joe Biden voted in favor of the war.

Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright, however, are mentors of Obams or, at least, they are sponsors and supporters of him. Louis Farrakhan, the notorious racist, who is definitely a Muslim, has declared Obama to be "The Chosen One."

How could Obama vote against the Iraq War? He was not a member of the Senate at the time. He could criticize it, and many others did, but he could take no actual stand. There really wasn't much more that could have been done in Afghanistan at the time, except pursuing the Taliban into Pakistan, which would not have been wise.

I hope you are not so naive as to believe that we have no discussions going with No. K or Iran or Cuba or Taiwan or other places. We have no diplomatic presence in these countries, but we do dialogue with them. This is a well-known fact, although it is not publicly acknowledged.

Ambassadors are considered to be the representatives of the president, etc., so personal discussion between the US president and the government of Iran would actually be going beyond diplomatic rcognition. As I said, the US president going to Iran would be personally risky for him. We all know what happened to the US embassy there, and the titular head is believed to have been one of the leaders of that atrocity.

 

[cloudy]

Yet another McCain rally: Bethlehem PA

This is getting really scary. How the hell can he sleep at night?

eta: but wait! There's more: "Little Hussein"

 

[rgraham666]

Winning makes all things good.