bmags

Girls poppin out

ooooooohhhhhhhh

Tim Gun-ville

KLUMTOWN

I must've missed it if it was on earlier? Some of this s*** looks WHACk!

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 16, 2008 -> 12:13 AM) Anyone know of U of I's journalism department? I didn't know they had one.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 16, 2008 -> 03:02 AM) My bad, was in the repub thread. Since these two are similar, must have had a senior moment. http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=1780393 I'd say there is a large distinction between how your crowd at your rallies is acting and these. None of those reactions were at Obama's crowd, so I can't even say that these aren't just anarchists, green party or libertarians. And as for the stuff in 04, that has no use. This is false equivelancy.

In 2004, Rove would look for specific, poorly-phrased words Kerry used that he would hammer on. Then, even if people favored Kerry in the debate, the media assault with this talking point ended up with the perception that Bush won by the end of the week. Think "global test". Well, if Obama does this, I have no doubt that McCain's mocking of women's health will be hammered on if done right and hurt him with women.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 11:50 PM) A few pages ago I posted a few different links with photos, videos and text of Obama supporters going nutso, threatening all sorts of bodily harm to Palin, especially. Did you just skip by those because they were inconvenient, or because you just post too fast? And did you forget the goon tactics in threatening the FCC license of a radio station or two or the tax exempt status of a group if they didn't disinvite Palin because the Dem person backed out? I went like 6 pages back and still didn't see anything

this is just unbelievably awesome. http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezrakle..._by_association

World music travels so much more. Dungen, I'd imagine, would be like Can thirty years ago, except they immediately found their scene.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 10:52 PM) Giuliani is straight out of 1984. Remember, a year ago today he was ahead. This is strange though, because after the trials of the original WTC bombing, he silenced critics by saying how this showed that the law will always prevail. It was a way of showing off our superior, civilized society, that no terrorist bombing could change our morals and ethics.

"Obama wants to read terrorists their rights"

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 10:08 PM) The GOP has completely abandoned civil liberties which I find odd because that's a conservative ideology. They mock the liberals for it now. Guiliani's line at the GOP convention was not only hypocritical, but deeply disturbing that people cheered for it.

I like music now. So much diversity.

IT'S JUST LIKE AMERICAN PIE!

Your argument: It's the media's fault (not backed up) Obama's supporters have shown more murder violence and goon tactics (not backed up) It's f******* stupid. And I should take this seriously, why?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 09:13 PM) that is the debate for me too. though PR will prolly be replayed again tonight back to back wooo

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 09:10 PM) Where were these people months ago? Probably same place they are now. The MSM hadn't recieved the 'McCain = racist" memo from the Obama campaign yet so they weren't trumping up all this bulls***. Now, they are, thats the difference. This notion that McCain is fueling racist is so f***ing stupid. Anyone that runs against Obama will have certain portions of the population reading in tons of innuendo. Honestly, I see more threats of murder, violence, and goon tactics from Obama supporters. It's a completely bogus claim, and you are entitled to it. But I'm not taking the bait anymore on this crap. later. at everything.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 04:07 PM) From Ben Smith today: I don't know what is all that shocking, people motivated by the past? They want to vote out the previous party in power, they want a specific issue? How is this stupid?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 06:42 PM) McCain criticizing Obama, or bringing up the fact that Obama started a campaign at Bill Ayers house, is stuff that was going to come up even if Obama was white. Basically, every crazy person that hates Obama is a direct result from McCain criticizing Obama? It's just such a bogus argument. McCain hasn't said anything about Obama being black, or a Muslim; McCain got booed for defending the Obama slams at a McCain town hall meeting. You read so much into everything even when nothing is there. I understand you REALLY REALLY like Obama, but people will run against him in elections, deal with it. I mean everytime someone criticized the guy they get labeled 'racist'. The Clintons were labeled racists for f***s sake by you people. This whole 'McCain is fueling racism' stuff is far fetched and over the top. I'm sure there are McCain supporters with extreme views, as are certain Obama voters. It's completely impossible for these candidates to control everything their supporters do. It's not a bogus argument. Where were these crowds in August? Where were these crowds when "dangerously inexperienced celebrity" was gaining headway? Then it was a general mocking that this guy thought he could be president. Now this is different. This is people saying "Kill Him" "Off with his head" "Terrorist". What's Palin/McCain's main talking points now? Is it celebrity? It's Ayers. They highlight him being a dangerous outsider with terrorist ties. The opening speakers once again call him Barack Hussein Obama. The pastors call for God to elect McCain so God doesn't get outrun by the Hindu Gods in America. BUt this is coincidence. This is a few whackos, that decide to come out...now. Not 3 months ago. Now. And this has nothing to do with McCain's campaign? You act like Clinton was just labeled racist out of the blue. The comment derided Obama as just another black candidate, getting the black vote. If you don't see how I'm the candidate for the Hard working, white Americans, in West Virginia, of all places, could not be seen as infusing race into the race, then this is naive. I don't begin to believe that Bill or Hillary Clinton is racist, but that doesn't mean that they didn't infuse race into their campain during the primaries. You again fail to see the implications of these statements. If I were to have the view, that there has never been racism or fear of a candidate of an opposing race taking power, therefore there is now no fear of a candidate of a different race taking power, then I could see how this could be seen as blowing something out of nothing. But, just because these claims made against John Kerry, out of touch liberal american, french, were innocuous to him, were merely mocking, doesn't mean that if these same claims made Obama could not incite different reactions about him. When your entire campaign against Obama right now is specifically that he's dangerous, a terrorist sympathizer, not one of us, hiding who he really is, and it produces this reaction - what part of these are you inciting? The I don't want to be taxed part? Please. We have to live with the realities of our world. When McCain decided in October to run exclusively on Ayers, on Obama not being an open book, and is surprised that the reaction is this vitriolic, perhaps he should realize that he is inciting the darkest part of America's conscience. Not to say McCain cannot bring up Ayers. But his claim that he's merely bringing up judgment is false. He's planting the seeds of "birds of a feather". The fact that he repudiated one town hall after a week of criticism, frankly, doesn't encourage me.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 06:38 PM) Both candidates sit at a table. are there follow up questions?

What's the format for this one. It better be improved from the last travesty.

The reason edwards' was so much more acidic is how he used his wife's battle with cancer, and the fact that people love Elizabeth Edwards, to gain some political capital.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 06:15 PM) i have bad news for your analysis. questioning an opponents vision for America is standard during presidential campaigns. painting the other candidate as a radical outsider has been done many times before, think Reagan in 1980; he was supposedly a psycho intent on launching nuclear weapons and ending life on earth as we know it. I have bad news for your analysis. When the outsiders of your campaign are creating pamphlets calling him an arab, writing books about how he's a muslim, and bringing on guests saying Obama only came to Chicago "probably" because of Ayers and is now just a puppet for him, while the candidates are saying he's palling around with terrorists, questioning who he is - 20 months in -, making ALL their ads negative - most not having anything to do with policy -, these all fuel one message. And the difference, the reality, is that Obama is black and has an arab name. So these same statements applied to Ronald Reagan vs. Barack Obama bring out different reactions in their intent. So, McCain can swoop into these rallies, Palin can swoop into these rallies, say these things that have roots in previous claims, all though being an outsider is usually run as a good thing (Palin can both run as an outsider and blast Obama for being an outsider! ), and leave acting oblivious to how their message is received. But when these phrases, along with fueling this relationship with Ayers, and him being black with a Muslim name, are clearly igniting in people hatred and racism, THEY are responsible. If these motifs they are spreading, whether intended to frame in a different way, are being received in another, THEY are responsible. THEY are responsible for these racist crowds. McCain is more than capable on framing this election on experience and taxes, he hasn't done that. He's done it on character, against a black candidate. So yes, in a world that deals with realities, McCain's campaign absolutely has infused racism into it. I didn't even mention the elitist, UPPITY Obama uses.