U.S. Presidential Election 2008

You just did that to screw with the Democrats cause you are a Republican pot stirrer.

EDIT: and you wouldn't have voted for her if you thought she had a chance in hell of winning in the GE.

Please... McCain's own public record exposes him. Talk about a spin ... did you happen to catch I spoke about the networks and Cindy McCain because they have not given her a full examination?? I guess not...you tend to read one thing and type something else.

You made at least one false claim about McCain's voting record, and even after being exposed you continue to propogate that same lie. Disgraceful. Now you make allegations and can't even say where you got them from. Someone with your track record of making dubious claims needs to cite reliable sources.

As for the networks, you claimed they were bribed to keep quiet. That is a statement of fact, and despite being asked by 3 TTers to post your evidence/source, you have not. Yet you expect that claim to be uncritically accepted. That's delusional.

Eurovol, are you offended by KK's "southern values" remark? Do you have any idea what she is talking about?

I had seen most of these out there about Cindy. I assume there are links out there to "support" them or at least give them a grounding. KK is not making it up AFAIK.

The only new one I saw was her father. Apparently he was mobbed up. An american businessman with mob ties? No way!

I was hoping for something new and exciting. Once again, KK fails to deliver.

Why would I be? She isn't saying anything there that I have said a kazillion times already.

Funny... I wasn't aiming at satisfying you. The question was what issues in the campaign will Cindy McCain bring in the analyzing of the nominees wives. She has a whole host of conflicting issues, and people are taking notice, because naturally...the wives will be taking center stage.

So when the RNC starts in what? On Monday... just be sure, the commentary will not be favorable.

If you want something new and exciting ... ampland.com can fit that bill.

How exactly does Cindy McCain "have a whole host of conflicting issues"? For example, what does her father's conviction six years before she was born have to do with her?
This is what he got convicted for:


Not defending it, but it's hardly the worst thing anyone has done.

I still don't know what KK meant by "southern values". Too bad eurovol couldn't shed some light on that.

I don't think an Obama supporter should be getting to hyped about another politician's ethical lapses without at least acknowledging those of Slick Barry. Politicians with ethical lapses- now that is not exactly an exclusive club. I don't know what Anheuser-Busch investments overseas have to do with Cindy McCain or anyone's ethics.

??? I am not going to bore you or anyone else with my voting record, however, I voted for her and have voted for her husband and Jim Moran for as long as I have been able to. We even were given tickets to the '92 Inaugural Ball. I'm just a DLC Democrat, so naturally I am at odds with the hysterical MoveOn types that make up the core of Obama's support - along with the latte drinkers.

Conquistador, you know that KK's referring to gatzke's comment on "inexperienced" being the new term for "black." That's a comment that doesn't need further explanation, though.

I see no reason why anyone should put in any effort to prove anything on Cindy McCain's list to you when gatzke's very first point on his list of Obama problems is a flat out lie. Again, that goes through without question. But anything KK or any other Obama supporter writes gets the full CSI investigation, no matter how trivial.

Dems promise support for science


Damn straight!

I never said those were accurate on my lists. I even said some were kooky. I was wondering where the media go. Truth and accuracy is not required of the media.

And Eurovol actually responded with a reasonable and balanced post (gasp) of something I had not thought of.

KK had alluded multiple times to Cindy McCain skeletons without details. I wanted to see what was referenced, but I don't see anything terribly out of place in that list, even if it all turns out to be 100% accurate.

Its not like her husband was campaigning on healthcare reform and she worked for a hospital that did shady patient dumping practices.

bohemka, gatzke pointed out things pertaining to both candidates, and I took it as being a bit sarcastic, saying these would become items of focus. I'll look at it again, but I didn't interpret it as him vouching for their accuracy.

As for KK, she has posted some things she could not back up and/or some rather serious misrepresentations. Something like the incredible claim that a bribe was paid to TV networks requires some reliable sources unless the person making such a claim wants to be viewed as a conspiracy theorist. Given that behavior, yes, I will challenge her to prove her claim, especially when they are as incoherent as a few on that list of 10 or as unlikely as the still-unsubstantiated bribe claim. And, yes, KK is far from the only Obama supporter to make unsubstantiated claims.

Finally, Cindy McCain is neither a candidate, nor is she a person who would have any policy role in a McCain presidency,so the relevance of what KK posted is practically nil even if every bit was properly represented by her (which I strongly doubt). Funny how Candidate Obama's ethical lapses are ignored by her, yet she is on the prowl for dirt on a person who is not a candidate and who would not even be on our radar screen if she weren't a candidate wife, and- worse yet- these things (including something the candidate's now-deceased father-in-law did 60 years ago) are bizzarely alleged by KK to be reasons not to vote for John McCain.

Yeah fuck latte drinkers!!

I like a little foam on my large cappacuino please <---Screw these people too!

As for the use of the word "inexperienced", let's see if we can make heads and tails of it from earlier posts:


Note eurovol uses the word to show what he thinks the Republicans will use as argument against Obama.


It was gatzke that suggested (perhaps sarcastically- only he knows) that "inexperienced" would be some code word in the election campaign. I tend to think it was sarcastic since a white candidate could certainly be inexperienced as well. Seems as though he was positing race as a potential factor in the campaign without indicating his own agreement with its use in the campaign.


KK rejected the suggestion gatzke made, but suggested that gatzke is racist. Seems she jumped the gun there.


gatzke is pointing out the potential use by others of the use of the word "inexperienced" as a race-based insult, not using it himself.

It looks to me as though gatzke has been unfairly accused by KK, who used a code word herself.

Thanks Conq. I was being a bit sarcastic, but it may actually be true. It is hard to imagine articulate to be an insult, but you never know these days. Inexperienced can easily become a racially charged word.

Note that if I ever say someone is inexperienced, I don't mean it as a racial insult. Veiled racial comments would be something like "he doesn't look like any of the other presidential candidates."


Now that the polls are tight, the media is running the stories "OMG, race may be a factor." Also, thanks Conq for pointing out I never said it was a factor for me. KK seems to lose focus on facts on occasion.


I pride myself on my southern background, so I was not terribly insulted by KK. A good friend of mine is a godless northeastern liberal (his words) so I have grown a thick skin to attacks on my southern heritage.

It is ironic for someone with such a liberal open-minded leaning to resort to standard stereotypes and traditional prejudices plus personal attacks. But it is TT, so that is actually good behavior.

I feel like I'm back in high school and the cool girls are debating which of them is Cooler...

Fact is, Cindy McCain has some baggage and has been called a liability to McCain for those who have enough sense to look beyond the bleached blonde hair.

The Republicans are working on their platform this week, ahead of their convention. Some of the notable changes and highlights:

Now I am a high school girl? First the southern insult, now this...


Drug addicted, sidestepping felony charges, staffer plagiarized recipes, and uncertainty in their adoption story (did they or did they not talk to Mother Theresa?). Plus daddy was a felon. I don't think that will be what sinks McCain's ship.

Her biggest problem is the boatloads of cash she has inherited. Makes them appear elitist.

BHO has money too, but not crazy McCain money. Neither one is a common man, so it will be hard to identify with both of them.

W at least came across as a common guy. Maybe a little too common.

Only a person looking for the finest particles of dirt on John McCain, and such a person is already obviously a diehard Barack follower, would worry about such things. Only a brainwashed person would only look for the bad in a candidate and the candidate's spouse.

You can find unflattering things about each potential First Lady, but none of those things disqualify their husbands from being President.

Again, where is the evidence of this alleged bribery of TV networks?

Are some Obama supporters this desperate? Maybe so.

BTW, since Jason Fuhrman became Obama's top economic adviser, the candidate's proposed tax policy seems to have improved somewhat.

I think it's fairly obvious that Cindy McCain hates America. She allowed Budweiser to be sold to the Belgians!!!

I would think more like she hates Belgium. ha ha

It's all in the perception now isn't it?


I had a very (no REALLY) good chuckle reading this. Not because it was by any means funny in a laughable funny, but more the insanity of the spin. I am believing less and less that you know what you're talking about. Can you not Internet? Really?... I challenge you to type the words ... Cindy McCain into google.


So say you... once again, your opinion. Because it's the Public who will decide the risks and the costs of having McCain as President. And seeing as half the voting Public . that we know, is convinced that the McCain's will run this country into the ground...I am very confident in recoginizing that the McCains have an uphill battle.

The first comment indicates your claws were out ... the second confirms it.

this had to be after her company Lobbyist hit Washington and made Mothers MADD

KK, it is up to you to back up your silly claims, not for the rest of us to go scrambling about doing it for you. You need to provide the links or face being called out for making shit up.

Psssst: "Internet" is not a verb. Nor is it capitalized. Did you say you are a writer? In English?

I feel no need to personally back them up because independent media and factcheckers have done it already. Not to mention mainstream media has touched on some surface aspects of Cindy McCain ... glossing over the more controversial aspects I noted and not discussing her family brewery interests of course, her net worth, or her personal role in McCain's first marriage.

Psst ... the Internet is considered a thing/place ... cyperspace you know. Nouns are capitalized ... learned that in kindergarden.

Well that brings up a question Is internet a proper noun?.

Internet capitalization conventions

1. Once in NA (narcardics anonymous) always a member.
2. It's bad enough that the Public is presented with the wealthy getting off scott free on the daily, on crimes that would have sent most Americans to spend years in Federal prison doing time.
3. Stealing from her own medical charity to support her addiction is only a symptom of the greater problem
4. Plagirizing Cindy's page on the McCain website is again, the symptom of wanting to be something the family is obviously not
5. Lying about Mother Teresa (in every published report they never met her personally) is just wrong and they were called on it.
6. John McCain's inlaws financed his journey through government

These points alone, (eliminating the Beer company), no probably won't sink it... but taken together and in light of the lobbying and other questions Cindy McCain brings to the table, it's giving people pause. Good and bad. If you want to claim... Cindy's not the one running for President, I would disagree with you. Cindy has been campaigning for John since the beginning...so obviously the Public is going to take notice of her character traits and character flaws.

It is Mother Teresa's birthday today (27th). I have nothing more to add at this time.

I'm just waiting for the haughty, nose in the air europeans to come along and remind us stupid Americans that the candidates private lives have no bearing on their ability to discharge their duties. Should happen about any time now...hullo?...where are you guys?

Oh, sorry, wasn't a sex scandal.

lol ...

Hillary speaks at the Convention this evening ... should bring some news ...

Glasshouses and stones come to mind here...

OK, I'll back off on capitalizing internet as a proper noun, but KK used it (improperly) as a verb, and you can't claim you're using the proper noun capitalization when you're writing "to internet."


I never knew that. It's my birthday, too. I think I can safely say that's just about all I have in common with Mother Teresa.

I don't care too much for Dennis Kucinich, but I did like his speech.

Dennis Kucinich Speaks to the DNC ("Wake Up America!")

Uh-oh! Here she comes...

This is yet another example of your inability, KK, to read for comprehension and keep things in context.

Here is the context:


My comments are in reference to things other than your less-than-impressive list 10. I referred, for example, to your still-unsubstantiated and most unlikely claim of a bribe being paid to TV networks. I also had in mind earlier false claims and misrepresentations you posted about McCain- such as falsely claiming that he was not on good terms with his ex-wife and your exposed lie and misrepresentations about his voting record.

The only insanity I see here are things such as the bribe claim and your delusional belief that you didn't get caught lying about McCain's voting record. Furthermore, as I have already shown in catching in that lie on McCain's voting record, just because you find things on the Internet (in your case, the far left nutty blogosphere) doesn't mean it is completely accurate.


Polls seem to show that the public considers Obama to be riskier. That McCain has an uphill battle is due to the fact that this is probably the toughest political climate for Republicans since 1974. Despite that, he is still in the race, which means Obama is underperforming (probably because Obama is considered by many too much of a risk due to his relative lack of experience).

As for your insistence that you know what half the public thinks, your claim suggests an anti-McCain vote rather than support for your beloved Obamessiah, so you might want to revise your comments in this regard. I have yet to see any evidence that "half the voting public" is convinced of the claim you make.

Caught in another lie ("the one about half of the voting public":

QUOTE

This may also be of interest:
http://rasmussenreports.com/scoreboards/by.../by_the_numbers


Common sense tells you she's not running for President. But if you want to start going over candidates' spouses with a fine-tooth comb, I am sure there will be plenty of unflattering stuff out there about Frau Obama.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...-Mart-link.html

Um, obviously the dude is using the computer ... obviously the dude knows how to do a simple search on the Internet ... have you not noticed his ability to post a link? So my question was more of a statement, rhetorical and sarcastic. The nuances of the English language. I guess they just don't pass muster if you just don't know.


So this is how you spend your time? You really do need a new hobby dear.

the issue is surely illegality and corruption. If that little list were true for the spouse of a British or German senior politician it would likely finish them. Straightforward sex, even when it is gay, adulterous, sadomasochistic etc etc as long as it is between consenting adults is not a crime in most countries these days.

I'm quite well here, smiling over my coffee. When you quote me incorrectly...then of course I recognize that what you've just commented on makes no absolutely no sense. Not my problem, you see.

You're all full of personal opinion and no substance. Not to mention you contradict everything on the record so far as facts about the McCains go. Unless you're willing to claim the McCain's (who acknowledge the drug problems, conflicts of interests raised in government policy and her company, and various ethical dilemmas) are just out in out liers, then everything else is of little importance to me.


Tellephone polling is one way to measure it, and what's even harder is the degree of personal perception. That you can't measure simply because someone taking a poll will never agree that they will not vote for Obama because his not white. How many people will admit their personal biases. Fact is, McCain has no more experience than Obama at governing a Nation. But of course, McCain supporters will argue that tooth and nail, pointing to his military record and time in Congress. All of which has been proven to be not a strong stance at all.

McCain needs to prove that he's still a 'reformer' because he's basing his campiagn on things he took part in as an Independent. Does he think the Public stupid? I ask. (as an analogy) That's like Born Again Virgins, once you lose it, there's no going back and replacing it. Please. The only reason he's still in the race is because of the Party system (the GOP desperately needed someone/anyone)... not because he is the better candidate.

I base my opinion on the fact the race is nearly neck in neck. McCain's stalling has much to with the public perceiving him as another George Bush with GB policies. You can't win over the public with policy changes that are similiar to (if not exactly like) the last 8 years of government hell.

prove me inaccurate on any point. we're not talking idle gossip here, these are facts that have been investigated by smart sleuthers and fully published for the public to view. you should have no problems retrieving the reports yourself. The facts stand, my opinions are obviously just that.

A quick note on Hillary's speech:


AP This Morning. I have not listened to the entire speech, but plan to.

What you have given us are lies, innuendo, misreprsentations, bizarre interpretations and irrelevant, incoherent statements or sentence fragments. You have been silent about the Obamas' ethical issues, which shows you don't care about ethics, rather your only concern is tearing down McCain.

As for substance, no one would mistake your posts for having much of that.

Here, once again, is your list of 10 supposed points of your cases against Cindy McCain. What do you mean by this: "Of course the houses that she owns, but he shares with her (reportedly he shares only four)". She inherited money and bought her properties legally. What's the problem. As for the addiction to painkillers, you wanted jail time, yet you don't know what is the norm for first-time offenders in such cases. Plagiarism charges for a recipe are certainly of litte significance, especially when Obama and Biden were also accused of plagiarism. After your defense of Barack on the half-brother, I don't see how you can raise Cindy's as a point against her. Cindy is not an A-B exec, so where A-B invests would not seem to have anything to do with her, AFAIK. She doesn't file joint tax returns with her husband- she keeps her finances separate from his. This is not so strange. And so on. Even if all are facts in one way or another it does not mean everything was accurately represented and interpreted by you. (and it's a low blow innuendo what you put in parentheses for #3)




Barack being African-American may be a wash or a net benefit for him in this election. It's hard to say. By your logic, only George Bush 41 and Jimmy Carter would be qualified to be President, so it's a specious argument to say that McCain's 21 years in the US Senate aren't more important than Barack's mere three. Normal people won't buy that sort of drivel.


McCain has always been a Republican since entering Congress. Your statements are the usual sort of talking points coming from rabid Obama supporters (never supported with cogent analysis). Of course, you point out his record is not as the Bush stooge you claim he now is. What's more likely is that he, much like Obama and any other politician, has taken some positions for the election campaign. However, I also see many of them he has been consistent on all along (his pro-life stance, for example).


You have been proven worng a number of times. Then there is your unsubstantiated claim of bribery of TV networks.

Whatever Conquistador...

If you're not savvy enough to figure it out for yourself ... then I can't help you.

You've been proven wrong on other things, won't back up your unbelievable claim of bribery and can't even coherently discuss issues. I'd say that's your problem. Most people aren't going to take it on faith, especially not your interpretations.

OK all you smarty pants, who know everything, and when somebody else "knows" something, they actually know nothing...

Start listing your standard sources of information. I wanna see websites from all y'all, because most of this shit is bickering over validity (or the presence of) sources of information. Perhaps if we all had a common base on which to argue, this thread might actually have some meaning.

Or wait, maybe this thread is all about frustrated people who just want to "win" something to feel good.

The last 3 pages of this debate have been principally over KK's inference that the list of 10 items could somehow cost McCain the presidency (think about the absurdity of that for a sec), and then a load of people against "Obama Supporters" (A general term used for left-leaning people who don't have as much time in a day to chase down links to satisfy the nit-picking, word-warping Conquistadors of cyberspace, though when posting they know they heard it somewhere, at least, enough to be reasonably convinced) moaning about credibility of sources and until you provide me a link with a statistic that says "67% of people said yes", then I'm just gonna go "lalalalalala".

Or have I got that wrong?

Summary: If the goal here is to actually learn something, and convince someone of a viewpoint, then why don't you work together to post links to typical websites you trust for information, then build on that. Then at least we don't have to bicker about the source of the source's source and why the answer to the problems can't be simply 6.

hey! if this wont warm your stone-cold hearts, then nothing will...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__VQX2Xn7tI

sorry, havent figured out how to attach one yet

You haven't in the least proven me wrong. On what? Figments of your imagination?

Get over it man ... you'll be far healthier for it in the long run.

Washington Post So now you can explain to me how in the interests of the Public there will not be a serious matter of governmental conflict with the business of the McCain's.




See how easy it is?

Schmitty ... love it!