Question for republicans

[MiniHunterHorseFan]

Wouldn't it just be better if there were no Republicans or Democrats? I'm sure you've heard of the saying, "A house divided cannot stand." Imagine what weakness our country is showing to foreign countries with all the bickering and debating going on amoung our own borders. Why, it is almost like a second civil war.

 

[CyndiM]

I do not feel that the US should pay for the world to eat while our own people starve on the streets.....call me "Intolerant"I do not feel that illegal aliens to our country should get a free ride on my tax payer dollar.......call me "Intolerant"

I do not feel that the US should put up with all these other countries asking us for our help and then making it look like we forced our aid upon them......call me "Intolerant"

I am tired of other countires relying on us to get through their rough patches and then turning on us as soon as they have their help........call me "Intolerant"

I am tired of the US being called upon to Mother other countries who are trying to pull it together and being attacked for doing so....call me "Intolerant"

I am tired of other countries telling us how we should be voting and how it is going to affect them so much when if in fact those other countries could get their own act together in the first place, our elections would not have such a major monumental impact!! .......call me "Intolerant!"

You all would be self-reliant and not depending on us like you do.

I do not so much think we are intolerant as I do think so many in this country are tired of being the bad guys of the world but the only country to consistently step up to help......anyone...anytime...anyplace. All the while our own country suffers for the help we give. So if other countries don't like it so much and want to consider us intolerant, don't take our help anymore. Do it on your own.

I said this a few days ago in another thread just not as well. Thank you Minimama for saying what I was thinking.

Mary Lou your link entitled HERE would have maybe been a bit more credible if there was more substance to it and if the other articles written by the same person hadn't been so overwhelmingly biased (the ones I read).

Back to the original topic. I have been to these rallies! The person speaking doesn't hear these people. The sound echoing back is unbelievable the crowd is loud, clapping and cheering.

There is NO PROOF to the words shouted. In fact it may NOT have even been a supporter of McCain/Palin. The ONLY people who were shouting out with derogatory words/statements were definitely NOT Republicans at the last rally I was at!

So until I have proof that those were the actual words spoken I won't believe what a very biased news paper prints. Until I have proof it was a McCain supporter shouting out I won't believe what is printed in a biased newspaper.

That being said I had a phone call from a former cell mate of my step-son, who said he had just gotten out of prison., and the reason he was in prison was because he had said he wanted to KILL President Bush. Now if the words had been spoken (as some say) the secret service would have been all over that person like flies on horse manure.

Is America perfect? NO! Are all of the people in America perfect? NO! Are some stupid enough to make offensive signs? YES! Does that mean Sarah Palin or me or anyone else are responsible for what they do? NO! One of the unfortunate liabilities with free speech is, some idiots take that to mean they can say ANYTHING they want to in any form they want.

 

[Danielle_E.]

You are right, she is not responsible for anything she says at her rallies or anything that transpires because of what she is insinuating or says either

"Barack Obama, she told 8,000 fans at a rally "launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist!” This followed her earlier accusation that the Democrat pals around with terrorists. “This is not a man who sees America the way you and I see America,” she told the Clearwater crowd. “I’m afraid this is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to work with a former domestic terrorist who had targeted his own country.” The crowd replied with boos

Palin also told those gathered that Obama doesn’t like American soldiers. “He said that our troops in Afghanistan are just, quote, ‘air-raiding villages and killing civilians,’ ” she said, drawing boos from a crowd that had not been told Obama was actually appealing for more troops in Afghanistan.

Her attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness. In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric’s questions for her “less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media.” At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, “Sit down, boy.” "

Your right, she heard none of this and nobody else did as well. The camera crew was hearing things as well as the african american sound man and its acceptable for someone seeking election as a representative of a country to act this way.

 

[CyndiM]

I did not say she was not responsible for the words coming out of her mouth. I said she is not responsible for the words coming out of other peoples mouths.

He did launch his political career in Ayers, a known terrorist, house. He does pal around with a terrorist. Ayers IS a KNOWN terrorist! Ayers admits he IS a terrorist and only regrets he didn't do MORE harm!(2000) What part of that don't you understand?

NObama DID say our troops were doing those things! He may be saying NOW we need more troops in Afghanistan but that has only changed since he saw public opinion was against his original thinking.

NOT ALL Americans want to see our troops brought home without finishing the job. The press would have you believe that we are ALL demanding the troops come home NOW though!

There have been a few times I have booed the press (they just couldn't hear me). Have you paid attention to how biased they are? Look at what they did to Hillary.

Where do you get your information? At first it was just two words "kill" and "him". Now there have been news people insulted and abuse shouted at them along with racial slurs. Come on do you realize how absurd this sounds? If all of this were really happening it would be front page news around the world and top of the hour news on every TV station in the US as well as the world.

Why is it when NObama asks questions that get huge roaring negative responses from the crowds don't you criticize him? He is as guilty, or more so, of doing what you accuse Sarah of doing.

 

[tagalong]

He did launch his political career in Ayers, a known terrorist, house. He does pal around with a terrorist. Ayers IS a KNOWN terrorist! Ayers admits he IS a terrorist and only regrets he didn't do MORE harm!(2000) What part of that don't you understand?

Well, I understand that despite what Sarah assures the crowd and tries to whip them into a frenzy about.... that these are the facts... and they do not jibe with Palin's attacks.

It is easy to check all this out - and yet we still tend to rely on what we are "told" is the "truth".

I'll quote the entire passage from factcheck.org and supply the link as well... http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ta...iladelphia.html

They checked all this out back in April when Hillary made a stab at building it into something and then dropped it as she knew it went nowhere....

Obama's Radical "Connection"

Clinton exaggerated the violence committed by an Obama acquaintance who had been part of a radical group in the 1960s and 1970s and who refused to apologize for setting bombs.

Clinton: Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. [William] Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position.

And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died.

In fact, nobody died as a result of bombings in which Ayers said he participated as part of the Weather Underground, at the New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, in a men's lavatory in the Capitol building in 1971 and in a women's restroom in the Pentagon in 1972. The deaths to which Clinton referred were of three Weather Underground members who died when their own "bomb factory" exploded in a Greenwich Village townhouse on March 6, 1970. Ayers was not present. Also, two police officers were murdered in connection with the robbery of a Brinks armored car by Weather Underground members in 1981. That was about a year after Ayers had turned himself in and after all charges against him had been dropped.

Ayers did say ''I don't regret setting bombs'' and "I feel we didn't do enough'' regarding the group's violent protests against the Vietnam War. That was in a New York Times interview that was published the morning of September 11, 2001. The interview had been conducted earlier, in connection with the publication of a memoir of the year Ayers spent as a fugitive with his wife and fellow Weather Underground member Bernardine Dohrn.

Ayers is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Obama and Ayers served together for a time on the board of an antipoverty charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, from 1999 to 2002. Ayers also contributed $200 to Obama's campaign for the Illinois state Senate on March 2, 2001.

When moderator George Stephanopoulos asked Obama about Ayers, the senator said he is "a guy who lives in my neighborhood ... who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis." He continued:

Obama: And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George.

Obama also correctly said that President Bill Clinton had pardoned or commuted the sentences of two Weather Underground members, who had, unlike Ayers, been convicted and sentenced to long prison terms. Bill Clinton indeed pardoned one and commuted the sentence of another.

Obama visited Ayer's home in 1995 at the invitation of an Illinois state senator, according to a Feb. 22 story in Politico.com. But Politico concluded, "There is no evidence their relationship is more than the casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation." And while we by no means defend or condone bombings of any kind, Clinton strained the facts to make Ayers' 1970s activities sound homicidal.

So no - they do not "pal around". What exactly does that mean, anyway? Do they do lunch? Go to baseball games? No - Ayers is not now a "terrorist" - he was also cleared of all charges.

NObama DID say our troops were doing those things! He may be saying NOW we need more troops in Afghanistan but that has only changed since he saw public opinion was against his original thinking.

Not quite right. Back to factcheck again addressing the McCain ad about that...

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/dishonorable.html

And an excerpt...

What Obama said more than a year ago at an August 2007 campaign stop was a criticism of administration military strategy and not a criticism of "our troops":
Obama (August 2007): We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.

At the time, then-Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney attacked Obama for the remark. But Obama was on solid ground. As The Associated Press concluded: "As of Aug. 1 [2007], the AP count shows that while militants killed 231 civilians in attacks in 2007, Western forces killed 286. Another 20 were killed in crossfire that can't be attributed to one party."

Even President Bush admitted that there were too many civilian casualties, saying: "The president [Afghan president Hamid Karzai] rightly expressed his concerns about civilian casualty. And I assured him that we share those concerns."

But 2008 has seen little improvement. According to the New York Times, of the 1,445 civilians killed in Afghanistan so far this year, "slightly more than half" are attributed to insurgents. On September 17, Defense Secretary Robert Gates apologized for civilian casualties, explaining that "while no military has ever done more to prevent civilian casualties, it is clear that we have to work even harder." That same day, Gen. David D. McKiernan, the senior U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, told reporters that increased reliance upon air power was to blame for the rise in civilian casualties.

So Obama agreed with Bush, Gates & McKiernan that more troops were required in order to eliminate the need for increased air power and thus air raids that resulted in excessive civilian casualties.

I like this excerpt as well...especially the part I bolded..

Was Obama "dishonorable" to say what he did? That's pretty strong language. We note that the Obama campaign routinely describes McCain's campaign as "dishonorable," for running ads like this one. We'll leave it to readers to sort out who's honorable and who's not. The way candidates loosely throw around such emotionally loaded terms, however, sometimes reminds us of Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty, who tells Alice, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

Very true.

As far as voting for troop funding...

The McCain campaign's "ad facts" also point to a single troop-funding bill that Obama voted against in 2007. As we've written before, Obama first voted for a version of the bill that included a timetable for withdrawal. President Bush vetoed the bill. Obama then voted against a version that did not contain withdrawal language. And for the record, McCain himself voted against the troop-funding bill when it contained withdrawal language.

Where do you get your information? At first it was just two words "kill" and "him". Now there have been news people insulted and abuse shouted at them along with racial slurs. Come on do you realize how absurd this sounds? If all of this were really happening it would be front page news around the world and top of the hour news on every TV station in the US as well as the world.

Sadly - the racial slur bit has been in every report I have read as one wire service quotes another... but whether it is true or just somebody's spin is anybody's guess.

Without actual video evidence I would be inclined to discount it...

Why is it when NObama asks questions that get huge roaring negative responses from the crowds don't you criticize him? He is as guilty, or more so, of doing what you accuse Sarah of doing.

What Sara Palin has done at times in the past couple of days - is seek to enrage the crowd based on personal smears. She is pushing buttons and deliberately so - she is dealing in innuendoes instead of facts - and she is far too smart not to realize that. It is one thing to get the crowd with you on important issues... and quite another to try and rev them up based on personal attacks. And then to smirk and wink about it....

JMO. McCain deserves better. A maverick should not have to resort to endless smears and negativity - which is what his TV ad campaign has become.

I wish both candidates would spend more time telling us what they will do - and not what the other guy did or might have done ... or might do.

 

[LowriseMinis]

"(The New York Times published a piece on the relationship last week that concluded: "A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close.""

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/20...s_att.html#more

How do you define 'palling around'?

 

[Jill]

Imagine if Sarah Palin had had courage and the integrity -- or even the brains to turn the situation to work for her...

Imagine it? I believe Sarah Palin all the things you just mentioned. She's a very successful and intelligent woman, and I admire her.

Matt, I'm just embracing the ridiculous nickname that some others decided to give the Republican women of the forum. As if we haven't contributed 1,001 well thought out posts and only high five each other. "you ask for it, you got it" kind of thing. I figured that would go better than referring to the other side as the Dumb Dumb Democrats

And it would be great if we could all be one. You feel worried about McCain but I promise you, I have sincere, deep concerns about Obama. I wish I didn't. I'd love it if I felt the US would be okay under either candidate

 

[AppyLover2]

I may be mistaken but I think Obama's comment about "raiding villages and killing civilians" was made during the first debate. I know I heard him say it and was very disappointed to hear him make disparaging remarks about our troops. Palin was 100% correct when she said that is not something someone who wants to be the next Commander In Chief should say.

As far as what Palin should have said when faced with hecklers in the crowd I expect we've all played the "I should have said" game ourselves a few times. I did hear her comment to one heckler....don't know what he shouted but her response was something like "God bless you sir. My son is fighting in Iran to insure that you have the freedom to speak your mind." I personally thought it was an excellent comeback and from the applause and cheers of the crowd it appeared they did too.

Now to add more fuel to the fire the "race game" is being played.

IMO If America, as we know it, survives the next few months it will only be by the Grace of God.

Edited - The Obama comment was made during a campaign speech in New Hampshire - not during the debate as I thought. I remembered hearing it, but not where he was when he said it.

A question for the Obama supporters - are you denying that he said it?? Or trying to justify it?? Or just trying to ignore it??

 

[Danielle_E.]

Seems like Bush agreed that extra troops were needed because and the entire thing needs to be put here, not just picking and chosing a few words as usual....

]Democrat Barack Obama said it, the Republican Party pointed out in a screaming headline Tuesday that highlighted the presidential candidate's comments on Afghanistan and the killing of civilians.
Behind the scenes, Obama's rival campaigns buzzed about his statement uttered Monday during a campaign stop in New Hampshire when he was asked about his plan to move troops into Afghanistan.

Democratic presidential hopeful, U.S. Sen Barack Obama, D-Il., listens to citizens' concerns during a campaign stop in Hanover, N.H., Monday, Aug. 13, 2007. (AP Photo/Jim Cole) (Jim Cole - AP)

"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there," Obama said.

THE SPIN:

The suggestion whispered by Obama's opponents was that he was maligning the efforts of troops fighting in Afghanistan by stating they are "just" out there killing civilians.

The Republican National Committee simply repeated the comment as one of their "They Said It!" series used to highlight statements by opponents that supposedly put them in a bad light. RNC Chairman Mike Duncan followed up later in a statement demanding that Obama apologize for his "offensive" statement.

"It is hard to imagine that anyone who aspires to be commander in chief would say such a thing about our brave men and women in uniform," Duncan said. "Obama owes our armed forces an apology _ today."

THE FACT CHECK:

A check of the facts shows that Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents have been killing civilians.

The U.S. and NATO say they don't have civilian casualty figures, but The Associated Press has been keeping count based on figures from Afghan and international officials. Tracking civilian deaths is a difficult task because they often occur in remote and dangerous areas that are difficult to reach and verify.

As of Aug. 1, the AP count shows that while militants killed 231 civilians in attacks in 2007, Western forces killed 286. Another 20 were killed in crossfire that can't be attributed to one party.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressed his concern about the civilian deaths during a meeting last week with President Bush.

Bush said he understands the agony that Afghans feel over the loss of innocent lives and that he is doing everything he can to protect them. He said the Taliban are using civilians as human shields and have no regard for their lives.

"The president rightly expressed his concerns about civilian casualty," Bush said of Karzai. "And I assured him that we share those concerns."

 

[Buckskin gal]

I doubt if anyone is trying to deny it was said but by golly it is the truth that civiliasns are being killed in these stupid wars that are going on. Why deny it? Our troops are doing the best they can, with the training they are getting and we can't hide our heads in the sand and say it is okay that civilians have not been killed. Do you honestly believe that it is okay that civilians have been killed and we should give honor to it happening.....I don't think so. Serious mistakes are made but they should not be hidden. JMHO

I may be mistaken but I think Obama's comment about "raiding villages and killing civilians" was made during the first debate. I know I heard him say it and was very disappointed to hear him make disparaging remarks about our troops. Palin was 100% correct when she said that is not something someone who wants to be the next Commander In Chief should say.
As far as what Palin should have said when faced with hecklers in the crowd I expect we've all played the "I should have said" game ourselves a few times. I did hear her comment to one heckler....don't know what he shouted but her response was something like "God bless you sir. My son is fighting in Iran to insure that you have the freedom to speak your mind." I personally thought it was an excellent comeback and from the applause and cheers of the crowd it appeared they did too.

Now to add more fuel to the fire the "race game" is being played.

IMO If America, as we know it, survives the next few months it will only be by the Grace of God.

Edited - The Obama comment was made during a campaign speech in New Hampshire - not during the debate as I thought. I remembered hearing it, but not where he was when he said it.

A question for the Obama supporters - are you denying that he said it?? Or trying to justify it?? Or just trying to ignore it??

 

[AppyLover2]

Whoa Buckskin!!!! I, in no way, implied that no civilians are dying nor did I imply that it's ok if they are. My concern is that we have a presidential candidate who maligns the military troops who are risking their lives in support of our nation.

Sheesh.....talking about someone putting words in your mouth. :arg!

And Danielle you're doing your typical thing by trying to detract from my comments.....I didn't say anything about extra troops being needed.

My question still stands. Although you're both pretty quick to criticize my comments neither of you are bothering to explain your position.

 

[littlesteppers]

Whoa Buckskin!!!! I, in no way, implied that no civilians are dying nor did I imply that it's ok if they are. My concern is that we have a presidential candidate who maligns the military troops who are risking their lives in support of our nation.
Sheesh.....talking about someone putting words in your mouth. :arg!

And Danielle you're doing your typical thing by trying to detract from my comments.....I didn't say anything about extra troops being needed.

My question still stands. Although you're both pretty quick to criticize my comments neither of you are bothering to explain your position.

Our military is the best in the world..our young man and woman serve PROUD..and they deserve our support..you can voice your opinion..because they fight for freedom..some people just don't get it..BTW my hubby is a veterean,..so don'tell me I don't know what I am talking about..I been in military circles for 25 years..

I do believe IF Obama becomes president we will get the "draft" back..did anybody catch this on One of his speeches..we ALL fight..Not just a few selected??

 

[AppyLover2]

I know this is going to be (another) unpopular comment, but here goes.....Actually if I thought we might get the draft back I might reconsider who I'm voting for. I think it would be good thing both for our country and for those thousands of aimless young people who have no idea what they're going to do with the rest of their lives. As a 25 year veteran myself I'd vote for the return of the draft in a heart-beat.

 

[Danielle_E.]

may be mistaken but I think Obama's comment about "raiding villages and killing civilians" was made during the first debate. I know I heard him say it and was very disappointed to hear him make disparaging remarks about our troops. Palin was 100% correct when she said that is not something someone who wants to be the next Commander In Chief should say.

I posted more than just the few bits you mentioned above is all I did. I think it's only fair to do so because too many things are being taken out of context and that truly doesn't represent what candidates say. It has to work both ways and I know you will agree that is only fair - taking sound bites here and there for either of the candidates is truly not fair or a true representation of what they are saying or trying to convey. ( I know our politicians here try the same thing during elections)Once that is done if you still feel the way you do than that is fine. By looking at the entire speech I don't agree with Palin's remarks as I took his comments to say "we need more troops so that we can do a more systematic job and minimize civilian casualties. I am sorry if you felt that by doing so I was trying to say he didn't say those words at all.

I guess you feel then because Bush agreed that more troops needed to be sent in and that too many civilians were in fact dying that he should not have been Commander in Chief for the last 8 years or that he is unpatriotic, etc.? I may not like Bush but I certainly could never say he was not a patriotic Commander in Chief for your country or that he truly didn't have your country's best interest at heart.

 

[AppyLover2]

One thing I've discovered during the past few weeks is that ya just can't argue with a rock.

 

[Bassett]

One thing I've discovered during the past few weeks is that ya just can't argue with a rock.

Ain't that just the truth?

 

[LowriseMinis]

One thing I've discovered during the past few weeks is that ya just can't argue with a rock.

I've concluded the same thing.

However, this information might be what Obama's comments stem from.

"But as the Washington Post pointed out (LINK), "Much of the U.S. military's emphasis here, however, remains on killing or capturing insurgents, ...(b)ut energetic pursuit of insurgents has produced another problem -- a mounting toll of civilian casualties, mostly in bombing raids. The deaths have inflamed public opinion, turned many Afghans against the foreign forces and further strained (Afghan president Hamid) Karzai's credibility. 'Sooner or later, every liberating force becomes an occupying force,' said one Western analyst here. 'A majority of Afghans were glad to see the coalition arrive in 2001, and most of them still are, but collateral damage and cultural insensitivity are key issues here. Even if the Taliban are using civilians as human shields, in the court of public opinion it is still the foreign forces that killed them.""

We are causing heavy civilian casualties in Afghanistan right now, and I don't think that's acceptable. Obama is calling for more troops and more resources to go to Afghanistan so we have more manpower and better intelligence to act upon, and the resources for our troops to act swiftly but carefully. I wasn't aware that wanting those things for our troops was a bad thing.

 

[tagalong]

I may be mistaken but I think Obama's comment about "raiding villages and killing civilians" was made during the first debate. I know I heard him say it and was very disappointed to hear him make disparaging remarks about our troops. Palin was 100% correct when she said that is not something someone who wants to be the next Commander In Chief should say.

Well, then Palin is wrong (go figure) as the current Commander in Chief said that very thing. She should check her facts before saying such things - but facts rarely enter into attack-politics - on either side.

Anyway - as I quoted on the previous page from factcheck.... I'll bold all the key parts... the link is on the previous page... and it is important to note the quote in its entirety...

What Obama said more than a year ago at an August 2007 campaign stop was a criticism of administration military strategy and not a criticism of "our troops":
Obama (August 2007): We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.

At the time, then-Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney attacked Obama for the remark. But Obama was on solid ground. As The Associated Press concluded: "As of Aug. 1 [2007], the AP count shows that while militants killed 231 civilians in attacks in 2007, Western forces killed 286. Another 20 were killed in crossfire that can't be attributed to one party."

Even President Bush admitted that there were too many civilian casualties, saying: "The president [Afghan president Hamid Karzai] rightly expressed his concerns about civilian casualty. And I assured him that we share those concerns."

But 2008 has seen little improvement. According to the New York Times, of the 1,445 civilians killed in Afghanistan so far this year, "slightly more than half" are attributed to insurgents. On September 17, Defense Secretary Robert Gates apologized for civilian casualties, explaining that "while no military has ever done more to prevent civilian casualties, it is clear that we have to work even harder." That same day, Gen. David D. McKiernan, the senior U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, told reporters that increased reliance upon air power was to blame for the rise in civilian casualties.

So Obama agreed with Bush, Gates and McKiernan that more troops were needed so that less air power would be required... thus less air raids... and less civilian casualities...

Good thing none of them was Commander in Chief.

Oh.

Wait a minute...