Presidential Debate

[wanna be drummer]

McCain has said NOTHING about race at all this whole election run.

How can anyone seriously call him a racist? People are so stupid sometimes.

[THE FIRST LEDZEP]

McCain will win

[Del Zeppnile]

Congratulations. Just when I thought you couldn't get any lower.

Sun Child makes the claim that McCain is a racist, so to man yourself up, you attack her instead?

You bet I am attacking her. But I didn't attack her before I gave her the opportunity on at least two occasions to either support her claim that John McCain had done or said anything remotely akin to racist in regard to Barack Obama, or she should take it back. I consider her charge of racism to be extremely irresponsible don't you?

You're not McCain, I doubt you know McCain, he is only the leader of the political party - which most people will never have any direct contact with - so when someone makes a claim, that, frankly, could have a little truth in it (Yes, we dirty Europeans saw the debate as well), instead of laughing it off or ignoring it, you attack them in a much more personal way?

Why? Are you scared there's truth in it?

There is no truth in it and no I'm not afraid in the least bit that there is. It is a lie that Sunchild has farbricated, and liars don't deserve to be encouraged.

And as to you "dirty Europeans" comment. I could care less what you think about my displeasure at someone who would farbricate a lie like that just because John McCain is a white man and Barack Obama is a black man. It is offensive wrong.

You have absolutely no regard for anyone. You call Horsey 'Sparkles', you're calling Sun Child a 'nutter', liberals are 'dirty' to you, and I have no doubt you'll say much worse.

Sunchild is acting like a nut, so I called her a nutter. The sparkles comment to the person you call 'Horsey" was harmless. It was a jab at his personality.

You need to lighten up Francis.

Why are you making every little comment so personal? Why can't you let someone live/support a particular lifestyle or political party?

Of course people should have their political views. And of course we can debate those views. But making charges of racism is a very serious thing. If someone makes up such a charge, then I or anyone else should be free to challenge the person making that charge.

Jesus, your kind are scaring me more by the day.

Good. A little fear keeps people honest.

[Medhb]

You bet I am attacking her. But I didn't attack her before I gave her the opportunity on at least two occasions to either support her claim that John McCain had done or said anything remotely akin to racist in regard to Barack Obama, or she should take it back. I consider her charge of racism to be extremely irresponsible don't you?

There is no truth in it and no I'm not afraid in the least bit that there is. It is a lie that Sunchild has farbricated, and liars don't deserve to be encouraged.

And as to you "dirty Europeans" comment. I could care less what you think about my displeasure at someone who would farbricate a lie like that just because John McCain is a white man and Barack Obama is a black man. It is offensive wrong.

Sunchild is acting like a nut, so I called her a nutter. The sparkles comment to the person you call 'Horsey" was harmless. It was a jab at his personality.

You need to lighten up Francis.

Of course people should have their political views. And of course we can debate those views. But making charges of racism is a very serious thing. If someone makes up such a charge, then I or anyone else should be free to challenge the person making that charge.

Good. A little fear keeps people honest.

You don't scare me Del

[The Rover]

You may have this sign posted in your yard . . . .

But .... I will have this sign in my yard ... to counter it..

[I have got a horsey]

But .... I will have this sign in my yard ... to counter it..

Who's her running mate again? Jim McCain?

[Medhb]

You may have this sign posted in your yard . . . .

But .... I will have this sign in my yard ... to counter it..

Doesn't say much about McCain does it? You think Palin is more capable than McCain? I can see where one might be impressed by her style but there isn't a lot of substance under there is there? She's shown she is capable of repeating the party line ad nauseum even when being asked about something else....she's like a well trained cute fluffy poodle....Dance Sarah Dance!! Good girl!! Sit, Sarah Sit! Speak Sarah Speak!! Look at that folks!! She can speak!!!

[I have got a horsey]

Doesn't say much about McCain does it? You think Palin is more capable than McCain? I can see where one might be impressed by her style but there isn't a lot of substance under there is there? She's shown she is capable of repeating the party line ad nauseum even when being asked about something else....she's like a well trained cute fluffy poodle....Dance Sarah Dance!! Good girl!! Sit, Sarah Sit! Speak Sarah Speak!! Look at that folks!! She can speak!!!

Every once in a while, voters flirt with a candidate who is thin on policy/intelligence, but big on populist, "aww I'm just a regular Joe simple speak, just like you" statements.

That flirtation usually ends when the public realise that for all their down-to-earthness, they're not very good at governance.

Palin reminds me of a woman here in Australia about 10 years ago who became a huge flash in the pan in politics. She was just a regular Aussie mum who ran a fish and chip shop, formed her own political party, had no policies, made embarassing statements, blamed the country's problems on immigrants and indigenous Australians, she was a straight, simple talker, very conservative, and for a while there she was the biggest news making politician in the country. Half the country loved her, the other half hated her. After a while her political ineptitude and lack of intelligence showed, as her own political party disowned her, then it collapsed, and she ended up going to Prison for a few months.

[reids]

You don't think all the Muslim smears or extreme coverage of Rev. Wright had anything to do with race? Come on, now if Sarah Palin has to give a press conference to defend herself against her church... then I will be impressed( because it would mean Sarah Palin's pastor was getting coverage on the same level as Rev. Wright and also because it would mean she would actually give a press conference). But if she doesn't start getting called out on her pastors and churches then it is, in the end.. racism that caused everyone to attack Barack on his church/pastor. Barack is not the one playing the "race card". The man is half black, get over it.

Or like srplane would say.... ACCEPT IT... BARACK OBAMA WAS NOT PICKED FOR YOU!

Palin's pastor wasn't a nut making racist/derrogatory remarks though and she didn't sit under his authority/approval for X number of years like Obami did. O only moved from that church when the media started picking up on how much of a nutball Wright's behavior was/is. O even has kept his distance from Jessie Jackson, due to his racist remarks (remember the video taped footage of him making remarks towards O as well?)

R

Edited October 3, 2008 by reids

[danelectro59]

Every once in a while, voters flirt with a candidate who is thin on policy/intelligence, but big on populist, "aww I'm just a regular Joe simple speak, just like you" statements.

That flirtation usually ends when the public realise that for all their down-to-earthness, they're not very good at governance.

Palin reminds me of a woman here in Australia about 10 years ago who became a huge flash in the pan in politics. She was just a regular Aussie mum who ran a fish and chip shop, formed her own political party, had no policies, made embarassing statements, blamed the country's problems on immigrants and indigenous Australians, she was a straight, simple talker, very conservative, and for a while there she was the biggest news making politician in the country. Half the country loved her, the other half hated her. After a while her political ineptitude and lack of intelligence showed, as her own political party disowned her, then it collapsed, and she ended up going to Prison for a few months.

We have one of those here in the US as well. He's currently the Guv of California, and believe you me, if he were a US born citizen, he would have probably been the Republican nominee.

I think you know him as The Terminator. I just call him Awnald

[Electrophile]

Palin's pastor wasn't a nut making racist/derrogatory remarks though and she didn't sit under his authority/approval for X number of years like Obami did. O only moved from that church when the media started picking up on how much of a nutball Wright's behavior was/is. O even has kept his distance from Jessie Jackson, due to his racist remarks (remember the video taped footage of him making remarks towards O as well?)

R

Have you any idea what Palin's pastor DID say? No, you probably don't. So let's not accuse one of saying something more stupid than the other when you don't take the time to research what the other party has espoused from the pulpit.

Furthermore, can you at least spell peoples' names correctly? I don't agree with Palin or McCain's politics, but I spell their names right.

[wanna be drummer]

Ok allow me to answer: Yes, I have.

However, unlike you, I understand that black people have good reasons to have suspicions about and hostility towards white people. Just 'cus your grand daddy didn't own slaves doesn't mean you're off the hook for knowing a little history.

To say that how African Americans feel about whites is no different than how European Americans feel about blacks is frankly absurd.

That's bullshit. No black man alive today was, nor ever will be a slave. That's history. No group or race or ethnicity has any right to be prejudiced against another in this modern day and age. It's simply inexcusable.

And yes, I'm off the hook.

[Dzldoc]

That's bullshit. No black man alive today was, nor ever will be a slave. That's history. No group or race or ethnicity has any right to be prejudiced against another in this modern day and age. It's simply inexcusable.

And yes, I'm off the hook.

Yeah I have to agree with this, yes there still is racism and bigotry but the slave debate is worn out and long past it's time. IMO

[The Rover]

Doesn't say much about McCain does it? You think Palin is more capable than McCain? I can see where one might be impressed by her style but there isn't a lot of substance under there is there? She's shown she is capable of repeating the party line ad nauseum even when being asked about something else....she's like a well trained cute fluffy poodle....Dance Sarah Dance!! Good girl!! Sit, Sarah Sit! Speak Sarah Speak!! Look at that folks!! She can speak!!!

I think that McCain is more capable than Palin for Pres. The sign did not specify VP or Pres.

It's McCain in the Presidency, and Sarah Palin as the VP. In "08 .....

[Del Zeppnile]

You don't scare me Del

You only say that because of the sexual tension.

But you haven't seen me in my Ted Nugent loin cloth.

You should be afraid....

[Del Zeppnile]

Have you any idea what Palin's pastor DID say? No, you probably don't. So let's not accuse one of saying something more stupid than the other when you don't take the time to research what the other party has espoused from the pulpit.

You have just commited the logical fallacy known as:

argumentum ad ignorantiam ("arguing from ignorance") -- A fallacy that occurs when someone argues that because we don't know something is true, it must be false, or because we lack proof that a statement is false, it must be true. Ignorance or lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean a position or claim is true or false.

Don't be such a dumb bunny Lizzybeth.

Furthermore, can you at least spell peoples' names correctly? I don't agree with Palin or McCain's politics, but I spell their names right.

From the Urban dictionary -

spelling nazi

a person who freaks out when a little spelling mistake has occured or has be a constant little asshole about it.

[I have got a horsey]

You have just commited the logical fallacy known as:

argumentum ad ignorantiam ("arguing from ignorance") -- A fallacy that occurs when someone argues that because we don't know something is true, it must be false, or because we lack proof that a statement is false, it must be true. Ignorance or lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean a position or claim is true or false.

Don't be such a dumb bunny Lizzybeth.

You really are pathetic...sad

Liz never said that the statement must be false because we haven't any proof that it is true... She said "do you know?" "probably not" "so let's not accuse".

But no, Del wanted to be some big shot in his own little mind and have an excuse to use a latin term which doesn't even apply in this situation.

The more posts I see of yours, the more I realise what repulsive human being you are.

I'm putting you on ignore so I can at least fool myself into believe that things can't get as bad as you.

[Medhb]

You only say that because of the sexual tension.

But you haven't seen me in my Ted Nugent loin cloth.

You should be afraid....

Me Tarzan You Jane?

[allthekingshorses]

That's bullshit. No black man alive today was, nor ever will be a slave. That's history. No group or race or ethnicity has any right to be prejudiced against another in this modern day and age. It's simply inexcusable.

And yes, I'm off the hook.

It's not that easy as, no black man today was ever a slave. Do you think slavery just flat out ended for all African Americans in the 1860's? It didn't just all magically end for them. It was the legal beginning of freedom but African Americans were still sold after that and treated terribly.

[allthekingshorses]

Have you any idea what Palin's pastor DID say? No, you probably don't. So let's not accuse one of saying something more stupid than the other when you don't take the time to research what the other party has espoused from the pulpit.

You have just commited the logical fallacy known as:

argumentum ad ignorantiam ("arguing from ignorance") -- A fallacy that occurs when someone argues that because we don't know something is true, it must be false, or because we lack proof that a statement is false, it must be true. Ignorance or lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean a position or claim is true or false.

So what did Palin's pastor say? Would you like to get those quotes for us Del so we can discuss facts here.

Or would you rather remain ignorant?

[allthekingshorses]

Here some facts for you...

Palin's church..

Brickner said, "Judgment is very real and we see it played out on the pages of the newspapers and on the television. When a Palestinian from East Jerusalem took a bulldozer and went plowing through a score of cars, killing numbers of people. Judgment -- you can't miss it."

^David Brickner was speaking at Palin's church on August 17, 2008, she was in attendance, and those were his words.

^That's the kind of preaching she likes to listen to

The regular pastor at her church said this in 2004.. source CNN

"Pastor Ed Kalnin, the senior pastor of Palin's former Pentecostal church, has also come under fire for his comments. In 2004, he told church members if they voted for John Kerry for president, they wouldn't get into heaven. He told them, "I question your salvation."

The Assembly of God issued a statement online in response, which said Kalnin was "joking" when he suggested "Kerry supporters would go to hell." The statement went on to say: "We do acknowledge in hindsight that it was careless, and we do apologize for that. This statement is not written as a defense, but as a clarification." "

[SunChild]

Prove that John McCain is a racist. Not just your "feelings" of him based on his body language. You made a very significant charge, so why don't you back it up?

And as to your sanity, I will share with you my "feelings" (just based on my observations of your comments)--- I believe your mental heatlh is in question. I don't have a window into your medicine cabinet, but I would lay odds that you probably need perscription drugs just to "keep it together" don't you?

Normally I would not be comfortable making a charge like that, however, since you have no problem with calling people racists without any logical cause to do so. I am going to go out on a limb here and charge that you are probably a mental health patient.... (based on my opinion).

You are the bigot. You are the only one using racist language.

Nut job!

The McCain camp has said no such thing. YOUR ARE LYING!

The McCain campaign has stated their confidence that Gren Ifill is a professional and fully capable of moderating a fair debate.

YOUR ARE A LIAR AND A KOOK!

One guy making an abusrd comment at a gas station in a small town in the middle of nowhere is not enough to base your entire accusation against "lily white" people. If one comment is enough for you brand a man a racist (and much less considering you kooky logic about John McCain); then what about Joe Biden's comments about Indian people who work in convienece stores? Biden pretty much said you can't even shop at a convenience store in Delaware unless "you have a New Deli accent."

Do you want to respond to that? Are you going to call "lily white" Joe Biden a racist?

I doubt you will appreciate the irony....

Kook!

A lot of things happened "in history" but I didn't have anything to do with them. Neither did my father or my grandfathers.

I suppose you could find some Greek who is still pissed off at the Romans..

Get over it!

It doesn't other than I was wondering where your racial bias and bigotry comes from.

But being a kook pretty much explains it all anyway.

Have a lithium and diet coke....

Good night you nutter bigot!

As I said, a very weak position chosen by people who have nowhere else to go. I left off the adjectives "ugly and vicious", but you reveal yourself to an alarming degree with your post, my friend.

Still waiting for you to explain McCain's behavior towards Obama. It was on view for the whole world to see, sparky...

Edited October 4, 2008 by SunChild

[SunChild]

That's bullshit. No black man alive today was, nor ever will be a slave. That's history. No group or race or ethnicity has any right to be prejudiced against another in this modern day and age. It's simply inexcusable.

And yes, I'm off the hook.

You're the one who brought up the past by saying your grandparents didn't own slaves.

You make me laugh, if you think that racism against black (and other dark skinned people) ended in 1866.

The point, moron, is that black people have REASON (including contemporary, real life, right now reasons) to dislike and distrust white people.

Just cause it lets you off the hook to pretend there is no discrimination against blacks by whites, doesn't make it so.

Buh-bye now.

[Patrycja]

It's not that easy as, no black man today was ever a slave. Do you think slavery just flat out ended for all African Americans in the 1860's? It didn't just all magically end for them. It was the legal beginning of freedom but African Americans were still sold after that and treated terribly.

Yep and it's especially challenging when a law gets passed because a shift in power has taken place and people don't like it when what was once their 'right' became a prosecutable offense. So there's always this backlash against the law, more specifically, against those who now benefit from it.

And let's not kid ourselves: slavery is alive and well in the twenty-first century. It may not be as blatant as hundreds of years ago, but human trafficking (which has a disturbingly high client list in Europe and North America) and slave labour (in which you take a loan to survive but your only collateral is yourself so essentially you are forced to work for very cheap under inhumane conditions for the rest of your life, essentially a form of legal economic slavery) are also under the slavery category.

[Del Zeppnile]

You really are pathetic...sad

Liz never said that the statement must be false because we haven't any proof that it is true... She said "do you know?" "probably not" "so let's not accuse".

But no, Del wanted to be some big shot in his own little mind and have an excuse to use a latin term which doesn't even apply in this situation.

Read what Lizardbeth said again sparkles:

Have you any idea what Palin's pastor DID say? No, you probably don't. So let's not accuse one of saying something more stupid than the other when you don't take the time to research what the other party has espoused from the pulpit.

Lizard's arguement from ignorance is that there MUST be something that Palin's pastor said that is either equal to or worse than what Obama's pastor said. But nobody has taken the time to find the assumed offensive remarks.

That is not a logical arguement! You can't assume that Palin's pastor is just as boorish as Obama's from ignorance (without actual proof that there were any offensive comments).

I'm sure the missing logic in that will never be appreciated by your warped liberal mind sparkles. But at least try to act like you are keeping up with this stuff.

The more posts I see of yours, the more I realise what repulsive human being you are.

Sounds like a hammer dropping on an empty chamber to me.

You are such a wuss when it comes to argueing. Isn't there anyone left who can argue with some balls?

Where is Hermit?

I'm putting you on ignore so I can at least fool myself into believe that things can't get as bad as you.

I'm sure there are a lot of things that you are "fooling yourself into believing" sparkles, isn't there?

Well, I won't go into all those things, but it's really cute how you let everyone know when you decide to put someone on ignore.... it's so dramatic.

Good night showtunes!