Palin won't call abortion clinic bombers terrorists

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

If you have lost respect, it's your own fault. Don't try to blame it on others. Be a big boy, KG.

Take a hiatus. Maybe it will do you good.

Be a big boy. Shove it up your ass. Always with the machismo nonsense...

Good night, chum.

[chumdawg]

Shove it up my ass, eh? I'd prefer you stick around and try to defend your positions. It's awfully easy to throw your cards in and just go to bed.

[Flacolaco]

Not that this is going to make any difference, but I would personally really prefer people to stop telling other people to "shove" things up each others various places. That smells of a personal attack and name calling. You've both said that now, in different threads, and you're both very intelligent people capable of making a better case.

Ceasing and desisting would be rather preferable, and wildly appreciated.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Not that this is going to make any difference, but I would personally really prefer people to stop telling other people to "shove" things up each others various places. That smells of a personal attack and name calling. You've both said that now, in different threads, and you're both very intelligent people capable of making a better case.

Ceasing and desisting would be rather preferable, and wildly appreciated.

While the cease and desist order is given, I would prefer people to stop with the name calling with calling people "Village Idiot". Please add that to the list..Thanks in advance.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Not that this is going to make any difference, but I would personally really prefer people to stop telling other people to "shove" things up each others various places. That smells of a personal attack and name calling. You've both said that now, in different threads, and you're both very intelligent people capable of making a better case.

Ceasing and desisting would be rather preferable, and wildly appreciated.

Sorry. It was late, and I can see how what I typed came across wrong. I was just quoting chum back to chum. I wasn't telling him to shove it up his ass -- I was repeating his words back to him. Anyway, I agree with your general point.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I'd prefer you stick around and try to defend your positions. It's awfully easy to throw your cards in and just go to bed.

There's no reason for me to defend my positions when you don't attack them. All you did was tell me that you were disappointed in me, or somesuch. If you want to substantively attack my positions, I'll be happy to defend them.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Not that this is going to make any difference, but I would personally really prefer people to stop telling other people to "shove" things up each others various places.

Yeah - less talk, more action!

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Biden handled it like a bitter old politician, and I'm shocked that you would call it badgering.

In response to a question about ACORN, he lied and said that Obama's campaign hadn't paid ACORN "one single penny" to register one "single, solitary voter", when in fact they paid ACORN over $800,000.00 for "get-out-the-vote" projects.

In response to a question about Obama's relationship with ACORN, he gave some nonsensical answer about McCain speaking to ACORN and lied by saying that Obama isn't a benefactor of ACORN. You and I both know that Obama told ACORN last December that they would be coming to Washington as soon as he got elected to help him shape the agenda of his Presidency.

the question is if the obama campaign was "tied to acorn", and there are no "ties". the obama campaign gave the $800,000 to a group affiliated with acorn, not to acorn itself. seond, the role of obama as an attorney for acorn was a decade ago in a single court case in which the justice dept. was also working on behalf of acorn. the question was phrased to lead the listener to conclude that obama, his campaign and acorn are all "tied' together and that is not accurate.

could you provide the quote on "shaping the agenda"? could it be that you are stretching the statement where obama said he would seek their assistance in housing issues?

In response to a question about Obama's "spread the wealth around" comment, he inexplicably said that the only person spreading the wealth around is George Bush and John McCain's tax policy. He then went on to explain that rich people make more money under George Bush than they did before (of course, they didn't take that money from the middle class, but that wouldn't stop Biden). Talk about lacking "thoughtfulness" and "coherence"! Those are Mavdog's chosen standards for analyzing the way that VP candidates respond to questions by the press, and Biden failed miserably.

biden correctly pointed out that the middle class has seen its share of the nation's wealth decrease, and the upper income classes share of our contry's wealth increase, over the last 8 years. that is factual, coherent and a thoughful reply to the question.

the phrase of the question from the reporter was if the obama remark was "a crushing political blunder", which in looking at the response by the supporters is clearly wrong. not only has there been no "crushing " negative response from obama's supporters, his events have seen even more attendance since the remark. the reposrter attempted to editorialize with her wording.

In response to the legitimate question about whether "spreading the wealth around" is really Marxism, he actually had the audacity (after a smug "are you joking?" remark) to state that Obama didn't intend to spread the wealth around. Say it ain't so, Joe! Why don't you listen when Obama speaks?

the question was "how is obama not being a marxist". the quote from marx is far from what the tax proposals of obama are about, and with an increase of about 10% in the tax rate of upper income filers it is ludicrous to say that the tax changes would be confiscatory in the vein of "marxist" philosophy.

biden correctly says that the highest income households were about to receive an additional tax reduction, and his point is that the middle class- those income groups who have seen their share of the tax burden increase- need tax relief. is that taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the less wealthy? NO! it is lessening the tax burden of the middle income earners. how is reducing their taxes giving them money? it's not taking as much of their money.

In response to a question about Biden's comments that Obama would be tested and that there would be an international crisis, he lied and said that he said that what he meant was the next President -- regardless of who it was -- would be tested. Of course, any objective listener who heard Biden's prior comments knows this.

what? how your interpertation accurate? here's biden's quote:

"Mark my words," Joe Biden told a group of wealthy contributors. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like it did John Kennedy." A moment later Mr. Biden added, "Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

he is right, if you look at the history al queda did test each of the last presidents in the earliest points of their presidency.

thisa reporter was completely unprofessional. how anyone could defend her conduct is beyond understanding.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Not that this is going to make any difference, but I would personally really prefer people to stop telling other people to "shove" things up each others various places. That smells of a personal attack and name calling. You've both said that now, in different threads, and you're both very intelligent people capable of making a better case.

Ceasing and desisting would be rather preferable, and wildly appreciated.

Shove it up your ass.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the question is if the obama campaign was "tied to acorn", and there are no "ties".

The question was about embarrassment over ACORN, and Obama's ties in the past she even said ". . . that Obama has been tied to in the past." To pretend the question is about current associations is an easy way to avoid the question, and an easy way to act all indignant.

the phrase of the question from the reporter was if the obama remark was "a crushing political blunder", which in looking at the response by the supporters is clearly wrong. not only has there been no "crushing " negative response from obama's supporters, his events have seen even more attendance since the remark. the reposrter attempted to editorialize with her wording.

that's all Biden needed to say to answer that - instead, he lied - and said he was referring to whoever the next president will be. But more importantly - he avoided the part where he would have to explain what he meant when he implied that people will think Obama fails the test.

the question was "how is obama not being a marxist". the quote from marx is far from what the tax proposals of obama are about, and with an increase of about 10% in the tax rate of upper income filers it is ludicrous to say that the tax changes would be confiscatory in the vein of "marxist" philosophy.

see the thread on Obama's crazy marxist talk from 2001. This is an important issue, and is of concern to a great many voters. They should hear about it, and the Obama campaign should have to answer for it.

thisa reporter was completely unprofessional. .

You can only conclude that if you think it is unprofessional to publicly challenge the positions of Obama and Biden.

[Big Boy Laroux]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Be a big boy.

Better advice has never been spoken...

[Murphy3]

Is it wrong to enjoy the chaos of the political forum?

Honestly, I haven't lost an ounce of respect for anyone... Actually, it's quite the opposite. I've gained alot of respect for some people and their abilities in this particular section of dallas-mavs.com. There's a couple of people that stand head and shoulders above the rest in their ability to discuss politics. They actually seem as if they would stand head and shoulders above such people as Obama and McCain in that Obama cannot speak about many subjects without lying and McCain cannot speak about many sujects without looking inept.

Anyways, I've enjoyed the chaos while contributing what little I decided to contribute. And yeah, like most of you know, I did contribute very little to this portion of dallas-mavs.com. My main function has been to stir the pot a few times and let the good times roll.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

My main function has been to stir the pot a few times and let the good times roll.

I prefer to sucker-punch people in the throat, then hide in the crowd and watch the chaos unfold (motivated by sadism, not cowardice...)

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

Palin won't call abortion clinic bombers terrorists

Palin won't call abortion clinic bombers terrorists
Apparently, not all domestic terrorists are created equal. At least, not according to Sarah Palin, who got tongue-tied trying to get away from questions posed to her by NBC's Brian Williams Thursday night. Williams was specifically wondering about her description of former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers and whether she'd extend that description to other people who've used bombs against civilian targets in the United States.

Here's the exchange between the two. Video, via Think Progress, is below.
VIDEO: Palin won't call abortion clinic bombers terrorists
Apparently, not all domestic terrorists are created equal. At least, not according to Sarah Palin, who got tongue-tied trying to get away from questions posed to her by NBC's Brian Williams Thursday night. Williams was specifically wondering about her description of former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers and whether she'd extend that description to other people who've used bombs against civilian targets in the United States.

Here's the exchange between the two. Video, via Think Progress, is below.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hu1NeI4M1k

WILLIAMS: Are we changing -- it's been said that to give it a vaguely post-9/11 hint, using that word that we don't normally associate with domestic crimes. Are we changing the definition? Are the people who set fire to American cities during the '60s terrorists in -- under this definition? Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under this definition, Governor?

PALIN: There's no question that Bill Ayers, via his own admittance, was one who sought to destroy our U.S. Capitol and our Pentagon. That is a domestic terrorist. There's no question there. Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities that it would be unacceptable to -- I don't know if you're going to use the word terrorist there, but it's unacceptable, and it would not be condoned, of course, on our watch. But I don't know -- if what you're asking is if I regret referring to Bill Ayers as an unrepentant domestic terrorist, I don't regret characterizing him as that.

WILLIAMS: No, I'm just asking what other categories you would put in there, abortion clinic bombers, protesters in cities where fires were started, Molotov cocktails were thrown, people died?

PALIN: I would put in that category of Bill Ayers anyone else who would seek to campaign, to destroy our United States Capitol and our Pentagon and would seek to destroy innocent Americans.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palin is just showing us exactly why she is not the right choice for a Senator, Governor, Mayor, VP, President or even a Girls Scout Leader..

So, by her definition, the 911 attackers were not terrorists, because they did not say they were terrorists.?....GO figure...

This is classic example of a journalist trying to manipulate the message.

Palin is basically stating that one who bombs to kill lives in an ANTI-American stance is a terrorist. While those who use these tactics for individual personal things are equally criminals.

The difference between an Anti-Abortionist who results to breaking the law to save the lives of millions of babies and an Anti-American who results to breaking the law to have anarchy in the nation is that one is terrorism and that other is breaking the law.

I view very neagtively on Anti-Abortionist who kill to get the message across, but I have some sympathy as they are trying to save defenseless babies. This is a very very grey line and one that is not easilty defined by anyone.

Are abortionists terrorists?

Are anti-war protesters who cause civil unrest and in turn delay getting supplies to the troops terrorists?

Again, this is a classic case of a liberally biased journalist trying to manipulate a conservative candidate and failing. Gov. Sarah Palin clearly stated the differences and yet this journalist and many liberally minded individuals want to twist her words.

Funny how liberals who refuse to believe in the Absolute truth of Creation, but they want to use absolute truth for other terms such as "Terrorist" to manipulate their message.

Funnier to see this journalist manipulate the words of Sarah Palin, but yet they put on their blinders when it comes to anything stated by "The One"

It's as if this Liberal Media is in a trance and refuses to report on truth, but rather they spit out stories to support their own agenda.

[Big Boy Laroux]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Is it wrong to enjoy the chaos of the political forum?

Honestly, I haven't lost an ounce of respect for anyone... Actually, it's quite the opposite. I've gained alot of respect for some people and their abilities in this particular section of dallas-mavs.com. There's a couple of people that stand head and shoulders above the rest in their ability to discuss politics. They actually seem as if they would stand head and shoulders above such people as Obama and McCain in that Obama cannot speak about many subjects without lying and McCain cannot speak about many sujects without looking inept.

Anyways, I've enjoyed the chaos while contributing what little I decided to contribute. And yeah, like most of you know, I did contribute very little to this portion of dallas-mavs.com. My main function has been to stir the pot a few times and let the good times roll.

Murph, I agree. There's a reason why they say NEVER to discuss politics and religion on a first date.

Discussions of this nature will get heated. I haven't lost respect for anyone, either (I can definitely say, however, that some of the newer posters on here never had my respect, and certainly didn't do anything to gain it). As long as you can back up what you say and don't just spout incendiary statements just to get a rise. And name calling and profanity is also taking it too far. Do we want to become an internet version of the videos we've been posting?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

The question was about embarrassment over ACORN, and Obama's ties in the past she even said ". . . that Obama has been tied to in the past." To pretend the question is about current associations is an easy way to avoid the question, and an easy way to act all indignant.

what? the question was if obama is emabarrassed by his ties to acorn, and biden responded correctly, with the pharse of being "embarrassed FOR acorn" well put. acorn has been the brunt of a ton of negative press for actions it itself didn't do...they didn't falsely register voters the hired workers did. they are just trying to get as many eligible voters registered as can legally be done.

a good question is why anyone would be against more eligible voters being registered....

that's all Biden needed to say to answer that - instead, he lied - and said he was referring to whoever the next president will be. But more importantly - he avoided the part where he would have to explain what he meant when he implied that people will think Obama fails the test.

?? I think this is the wrong response to the above question....

he did not say that "obama fails the test", and that is a complete travesty of an interpertation.

[QUOTE]see the thread on Obama's crazy marxist talk from 2001. This is an important issue, and is of concern to a great many voters. They should hear about it, and the Obama campaign should have to answer for it.

you failed to respond to the question of how the proposed tax policies are marxist, and as I correctly pointed out it is NOT a redistribution of money but a lessening of the tax burden for the middle class.

You can only conclude that if you think it is unprofessional to publicly challenge the positions of Obama and Biden.

no, challenges to any candidate are fine, but this was in no way a professional and respectful interview.

[kg_veteran]

Let me say at the outset that I appreciate your substantive response to my post. My apologies for blowing one of yours off yesterday.

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the question is if the obama campaign was "tied to acorn", and there are no "ties". the obama campaign gave the $800,000 to a group affiliated with acorn, not to acorn itself.

It was an ACORN subsidiary (Citizen Services, Inc.) for "get out the vote" operations, and Biden said they registered all their own voters and didn't pay ACORN a "single, solitary penny" to register a "single, solitary voter". That's simply untrue, unless he's hiding behind the fact that the money was paid to CSI, not ACORN, which is a technical distinction that doesn't change the substance of what happened.

What's really interesting is that Obama's campaign initially reported their payments to CSI as "polling, advance work and staging major events." Specifically, their FEC filing had the following:

$310,441.20 25-FEB-08 STAGING, SOUND, LIGHTING
$160,689.40 27-FEB-08 STAGING, SOUND, LIGHTING
$98,451.20 29-FEB-08 TRAVEL/LODGING
$74,578.01 13-MAR-08 STAGING, SOUND, LIGHTING
$18,417.00 28-MAR-08 POLLING
$18,633.60 29-APR-08 STAGING, SOUND, LIGHTING
$63,000.00 29-APR-08 ADVANCE WORK
$105.84 02-MAY-08 LICENSE FEES
$105.84 02-MAY-08 LICENSE FEES
$75,000.00 17-MAY-08 ADVANCE WORK
$13,176.20 17-MAY-08 PER DIEM

Those are awfully specific numbers, and then they suddenly amended their FEC report 5 months later to say that it was actually "get out the vote" projects.

Do you not find that to be suspicious?

seond, the role of obama as an attorney for acorn was a decade ago in a single court case in which the justice dept. was also working on behalf of acorn. the question was phrased to lead the listener to conclude that obama, his campaign and acorn are all "tied' together and that is not accurate.

There were two questions, as I recall. The first was whether Biden was ashamed of ACORN and its actions, without any mention of the Obama campaign. The second referenced Obama's role as "an attorney for ACORN, an organizer for ACORN, and a benefactor for ACORN in Congress."

I agree that the term "benefactor" is vague. The rest of it seems to be unequivocally true. Even Biden admitted that Obama was an organizer for ACORN.

could you provide the quote on "shaping the agenda"? could it be that you are stretching the statement where obama said he would seek their assistance in housing issues?

"During the transition, we're going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda. We're going to be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next Presidency of the United States of America." link

biden correctly pointed out that the middle class has seen its share of the nation's wealth decrease, and the upper income classes share of our contry's wealth increase, over the last 8 years. that is factual, coherent and a thoughful reply to the question.

The question was about Obama's "spread the wealth" comment, which quite clearly deals with taxing higher income earners to spread (redistribute) that wealth (money) to lower income earners.

His comments imply that Bush's tax policy took money from the middle class and gave it to the upper income class. That's simply untrue. Bush cut taxes across the board. He didn't raise taxes on the middle class and then offer a tax "cut" (credit/payment) to the upper income class.

the phrase of the question from the reporter was if the obama remark was "a crushing political blunder", which in looking at the response by the supporters is clearly wrong. not only has there been no "crushing " negative response from obama's supporters, his events have seen even more attendance since the remark. the reposrter attempted to editorialize with her wording.

I agree. That was a poorly worded question.

the question was "how is obama not being a marxist". the quote from marx is far from what the tax proposals of obama are about, and with an increase of about 10% in the tax rate of upper income filers it is ludicrous to say that the tax changes would be confiscatory in the vein of "marxist" philosophy.

You're talking about a matter of degree. I thought that question was actually fair. If Obama's motivation in raising taxes on the wealthy is (as he has stated) as a matter of "fairness" -- to take it from the upper income earners so that he can give cash payments to those who don't even pay income taxes, then how is that not a redistributive scheme?

Again, I'll concede that Obama isn't proposing a 90% tax bracket.

biden correctly says that the highest income households were about to receive an additional tax reduction, and his point is that the middle class- those income groups who have seen their share of the tax burden increase- need tax relief. is that taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the less wealthy? NO! it is lessening the tax burden of the middle income earners. how is reducing their taxes giving them money? it's not taking as much of their money.

You're assuming it has to be either/or.

I agree that what Obama has proposed will reduce taxes on the eligible taxpayers who actually pay income tax.

As a practical matter, I don't see how anybody will be able to lower taxes in the next couple of years. If Obama goes through with his proposed tax cut/credit, it will be paid for by deficit spending. That's certainly not "pay as you go", and it's not sound fiscal policy. If McCain gets elected, I seriously doubt he'll be able to get the Bush tax cuts extended because the Congress will be controlled by the Democrats.

what? how your interpertation accurate? here's biden's quote:

"Mark my words," Joe Biden told a group of wealthy contributors. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like it did John Kennedy." A moment later Mr. Biden added, "Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

To test the mettle of this guy.

he is right, if you look at the history al queda did test each of the last presidents in the earliest points of their presidency.

Can you provide me with the source that indicates to you that he was referring to Al Qaida?

thisa reporter was completely unprofessional. how anyone could defend her conduct is beyond understanding.

I guess I need to understand how she was completely unprofessional. I'll agree that her "crushing political blunder" question was loaded. I'll even agree that she was trying to question Biden aggressively and was antagonistic toward him. But I think she handled herself professionally and was always polite to him.