Cattivo wrote:

The difference is that conservatism is normal and not dangerous, while Marxism & terrorism is out of the mainstream and radical.

You're killing me; I love how in the dying moments of the McCain campaign (and rest assured he's losing the election) all of a sudden Obama is a Marxist. Don't bring it up when the government OKs a very Socialist-leaning 700B bailout; wait until there's no chance to win and people have time to "forget" that McCain voted for the bailout and even tried to take credit for it with his "rushing down to Washington". Garbage. Nothing more Socialist than the government funding and staking partial ownership in the banking system/stock market. That bailout was Bush and Paulson's baby and McCain was front and center for the action.

And you're trying to tell me conservatism isn't dangerous, that it's normal? Tell that to the banks; the GOP can try and blame TWO years of a Democratic legislation on the crisis but who the fuck are we kidding? Deregulation, laissez-faire economic policies...THESE are what fucked up the economy and doubled our deficit, and they are conservative tenets pushed through the legislature long before the Dems had a measly two years as the majority.

Cattivo wrote:

For example, you can become friends with William F. Buckley as a liberal, but if you are chummy with the Ayatollah or Kim Jong-Il, mainstream America would find that bewildering and dangerous.

And no one is disagreeing with you, nor should they. But if you're going to use a broad brush to paint Obama as a terrorist sympathizer then it's wrong in the same stroke to dismiss McCain's funding of Khalidi; over 500k from the group McCain CHAIRED. Let's at least stay away from the double-standard, please. If you don't like Obama's association with Ayers, overblown as it may be, then fine. But if you're going to throw in Khalidi, you're burying your own candidate.

Cattivo wrote:

I've said before that the ACORN thing was the weakest of that group of McCain's arguments since he's spoken before them in the past. But, as I said then, Obama's connection is much more extensive (which I think would apply for the Khalidi situation as well).

How was it more extensive? In the court case where he was paired up with the DOJ quite a while back? Is that more extensive than McCain's speech two years ago at the ACORN rally?

Syd Lexia wrote:

I agree that Obama's personal ties are very troubling, and his excuse that he wasn't even born when Bill Ayers was making bombs is very telling of his moral fiber. True, he wasn't born when Bill Ayers was engaged in criminal activities, but that doesn't change the fact that he launched his political career from an ex-criminal's living room. In Obama's world, it doesn't matter what you've done, only what you've done for him lately.

Great, and 20 years ago McCain has the Keating Five, which he was DIRECTLY involved in. McCain's supporters are so disorganized, so hellbent on saying and doing anything to get this election to NOT be a landslide for Obama that they are willing to dig up any dirt they can find under every carpet and replace it with the dirt from McCain's campaign. How telling is THAT of McCain's moral fiber? He can take the supposed high road and be tough on the banks now? He's going to "reform the economy" after 26 years in the Senate of NOT reforming the economy? What were you waiting for, John? How am I supposed to keep from laughing at that hypocrisy?

Where was all the supposed outrage about Bill Ayers all these years from the GOP? Was Ayers in hiding? Was he in a cave in Afghanistan? Oh wait, no; he was in plain sight teaching at a university. He was on school boards, neighborhood and community outreach boards. Where were all the pitchforks and torches then? Suddenly McCain points the zombies towards Ayers and yells "there's a terrorist in our midst!" and everyone goes apeshit. Please.

The GOP is dying. Their attacks have turned ridiculous, and it's trickling down to Senate and House races. Lizzy Dole's recent ad is disgusting, Bachman is talking about hunting pro- and anti-American ELECTED SENATORS, Franken's opponent is trying to take skits Franken wrote for SNL 30 years ago and infer that those satirical views would seep into Franken's policy. There's in-fighting between the presidential nominee and his VP pick.

The funniest thing of all is how the GOP is trying to tell the country that they're being "duped" into voting for Obama. This is the same country that voted Bush into office TWICE. It's hypocritical to call citizens stupid (in essence) when they aren't on your side and then laud their judgment when your side wins. It's asinine. Bush has fucked up a lot of stuff over the past eight years and people are sick of it. People don't see enough differences between McCain and Bush to warrant giving McCain a shot. This isn't the "maverick" from eight years ago; he's been broken and now he's a GOP shill. They keep prodding the country with an "us vs. them" mentality and people are done with that shit, and I'm happy about that. After eight years of struggling we get a chance to hit the reset button and it feels GREAT.

Who's the Marilyn Monroe impersonator in that video? HIDEOUS.

Cattivo wrote:

I believe I did; I was mostly against it from the start, and said that it was borderline socialist. Yet, there is a distinction that it technically doesn't nationalize the banks because there is no permanent ownership of them by the government. This is quite different than Obama's consistent friendships with socialists & Marxists, and explicit belief in wealth redistribution.

Nor has there been a date set to end it. I'll believe there is an end when I see it. I don't expect a "Mission Accomplished" banner anytime soon.

Also, this idea of wealth redistribution is ridiculous; his plan is practically the same as McCain's progressive income tax. That is, depending on which plan McCain talks about that day. There's little difference, as much as McCain wants to distance himself from that fact. Having Joe the Plumber on McCain's campaign tour...when he shows up...(and who, btw, said today that a vote for Obama is a vote for the death of Israel) does not make his plan look any less "progressive".

And I don't pretend that CNN is going to give me unbiased clips and articles so I don't use them here. Please don't try and tell me that anything from Fox News is worth taking without a mountain of salt.

Quote:

Please Spanky, with this ridiculousness, I'm losing my respect for you. To actually say the conservatism isn't a legitimate political ideology is plain silly. I'm not low enough to suggest liberalism isn't mainstream, even when pundits like Ann Coulter and Michael Savage liken it to a mental disease.

I didn't say it wasn't legit; I'm saying (and you've agreed with me on this in the past) that it's been warped and rendered a shell of what it once was. True conservatism is NOT what has been going on the past few years; it's a perversion. And Bush is just as responsible as Clinton for the mortgage crisis. His defining message after 9/11 was to spend and keep our economy going. And people did. And if your point is that McCain was blocked by the big bad Dems, why didn't the Republicans try to reform when they had a six-year majority? Were they that ineffective while they had power that they couldn't reform something that was "so important" to them?

And to be fair, you didn't compare conservatism to liberalism in your previous statement; you compared conservatism to Marxism.

Quote:

When you hang out with as many corrupt officials as there are in Congress, it's almost unavoidable to be associated with someone eventually, no matter how hard you try.

Exactly. Which is why I'm willing to throw out the Keating business and the Khalidi business AND the Liddy business...except that McCain is still harping on Ayers, Wright, and Khalidi. Quid pro quo; you want to run an election where you try and dig up as many dubious distinctions as possible, and expect the same. I think part of the reason you're not hearing as much headed towards McCain is that Obama is too far ahead to care.

I think McCain used to be a reformer. I think he is not anymore. I find it saddening that the man was punished 8 years ago for being a maverick by his own party and now that he's in line with his party they're lauding his individuality. I don't see how the 2008 version of McCain would be stabilizing; I see him, through his own actions and words over the past 18 months, as a man who believes that America is currently on the right path and I disagree with that assumption. I want someone who is going to right the ship by fixing the mistakes of the last 8 years. I can't see how McCain can do that unless he pulls a 180 and decides that his loyalty to Bush and his last 8 years in the Senate were somehow detrimental to the country.

And I fundamentally disagree that Obama is going for "appeasement"; that word is being thrown around as a mudslinging buzzword without having any actual, truthful mindset behind it. Show me one thing that says that Obama is going for appeasement; that's ridiculous and dangerous to boot. And as much as you think I'm misguided and brainwashed, I feel you're the exact same way for McCain. The difference is enough people see it my way that come Tuesday Obama is going to be our next president.

Syd Lexia wrote:

The Keating Five scandal was a defining moment in McCain's career. He took what could have been a career-ending faux pas and parlayed into an impressive Senate career as a reformer...until 2000 when he was unfairly smeared and became a lackey.

Fixed.