Will McCain disown Palin's "terrorist" slur?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7653132.stm

This kind of "guilt by association" is worthy of Senator McCarthy.

 

I don't think so. She was probably directed by the campaign advisors to make it. And they will benefit from the people that don't know any better, that don't question sources and want the full souce behind the statement.

After all she's a maverick and a pitbull in lipstick protecting old grandpa. And we are supposed to expect her to protect the American citizens in the same way.

I am still waiting for Obama to respond about the ads that say he's missed 45% of the votes this year. Hell, McCain has missed 68%, and was missing from the Senate until this economic crap and his heroic run to Washington and suspension of his campaign. But the war hero worshippers have only heard the one ad.

 

He won't disown it. She's doing exactly what the McCain camp has said publicly that they plan to do over the next 30 days:Take the campaign into the cesspool. If they can frame the next month's discussion back into the realm of "fear" and painting Obama as a scary "other," it can only help them.

Palin even said, when she made the slur,"He doesn't see America like the rest of us see America ... He's not like us."

It's designed to play on racial uncertainty, uncertainty (ridiculous, of course) that Obama may not be a thumb-up-your-ass Christianist like the rest of us. "He's going to hell like those other Muslims."

What Palin said is just as desperate as George HW Bush's "Willie Horton" ad where he frightened people into thinking Dukakis was going to send this "scary negro" back out into the free world and into their living rooms.

It's shameless. And it's an effective tactic when you want to sway stupid people. Thankfully, that's the only constituency McCain has left to court: stupid people. But oh, how great they are in number!

 

she did as she was told.

 

LMFAO.
Oh, the desperation...

 

Exactly and paid to do. Who's running Alaska right now?

 

I think they will benefit more from the people that have not heard of Ayers or the Weathermen, and wonder why Obama would be associated with this guy. In my opinion, even if the association is an educational organization, that is no reason for a government representative to associate with a terrorist. A terrorist that has no regrets for his actions and stated that he would do it all over again. I think it is incredible that this guy is a professor at the University of Illinois.

Do any of you think your attitude who be any different if it were McCain, or a Republican that was in this situation? Some here don't even need the truth to chastise a Republican. Hell, a headline from the National Enquiror has proven to be enough of a reason to publicly bash one of them.

I posted this in another thread, but I think it is important that some of you know who exactly is being discussed.

 

Ayers was acquitted. Obama had dealings with him as an educator decades later, not as a terrorist or antiamerican. McCain on the other had signed unAmerican statements while in captivity by a foreign nation. Who should I be more afraid of?

Should I be more afraid of the Weathermen, or Nixon's Watergate. I think for me I opt for being more critical of politically supported underminings.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html

McCain's campaign seems to be relying heavily on Hillary Clinton's earlier attempts at winning the Democratic nomination. Perhaps we should wait until she weighs in. Seeing as how Palin has called her a whiner I'd bet she and Bill are really going to jump on board....NOT!

Sad really can't his campaign afford to do their own research? Maverick that he is can't he come up with something different?

The question is not whether a connection can be established between Barack Obama and a former member of the Weathermen, but whether it has any significance for the 2008 presidential campaign.

My question is Putin's head really hovering over Alaska?

 

Ayers was acquited because of the way the FBI gathered evidence. Hell, OJ Simpson was acquited. Does that make OJ less guilty? Ayers may have been acquited in a court of law, but he admits in print of the actions that he committed.

McCain may have signed un-American statements, while he was unwillingly held captive and tortured for 5-1/2 years in a foreign country. He was captured while serving his country.

Obama has willingly associated with somebody that was classified by the FBI as a terrorist, was a co-founder of a FBI classified terrorist organization, was involved in a terrorist organization that bombed American targets, was involved in a terrorist organization whose bombings injured Americans, was involved in a terrorist organization that resulted in the death of Americans (by luck only the terrorists themselves).

Ayers may not currently be committing terrorist acts, but he is also not sorry for the acts that he committed.

Obama chose to associate with Ayers. If you think that this is acceptable, that is your right. I think it is entirely inappropriate.

 

Was Ayers classified as a terrorist when Obama had dealings with him? I thought he was a professor and a civic worker in the state Obama was a legislator in at the time.


John McCain on the other hand was a military combatant held by a foreign nation with whom we were at war, and signed statements to the effect that he disagreed with his nation's actions. Big difference.

 

John McCain willingly associated with the enemy in signing statements, and giving information which may have put fellow military at risk.

Perhaps under duress, but our president is perhaps going to be under duress. Can we count on McCain?

 

It absolutely has significance for the 2008 Presidential campaign. We can listen to the candidates spew rhetoric about how they are going to fix the country all day long, but actions of the cadidates show us their character. Liberals like to bring up McCain writing un-American statements while in captivity. The man was serving his country and was tortured and held captive for over 5 years. He has sacrificed more for his country than Obama ever will. More than Bush ever will. I said the same thing about Kerry when the Swift Boat crew were slandering him. John Kerry sacrificed more for his country that Bush ever could.

The actions of people like John Kerry and John McCain are an insight into their character. Their service to their country in a time of war is in my opinion more admirable than anything President Bush or Senator Obama has ever accomplished.

Some more insight into Obama.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pFrw_U9b8U

 

The fact that McCain rolled over and signed anti American statements while held doesn't cause you to pause? You are now championing Kerry? Weren't you on board the Swiftboat campaign? I am at point where I just want an educated and cool voice in the world today. I am not looking for a hero, I a, looking or a leader. Not looking or a beauty pageant winner, I want statesmen in charge of this country. I want someone that reads newspapers and periodicals that keeps up to date with world happenings.

 

At the time of Abu Nidal's death he was not involved in acts of terrorism. Does that mean Abu Nidal was not a terrorist? What does that matter that he was a professor or a civic worker? Ayers still claims that he does not regret his terrorist actions, and thinks his terrorist organization should have committed more.

The difference is that he was being tortured. I know you have never been in the military, but in Special Ops or Special Warfare you go through SERE training. In SERE they try to teach you your limits in resisting interrogation if captured. It doesn't stop until you break. And guess what, everyone breaks. I do not hold that against John McCain.

 

Sorry bringing up arabic names doesn't make me cringe and go for cover. I respect all people and wish them them same protections under law that the US citizens hold.

It's never been proven that McCain was tortured. In fact evidence is that he wasn't.

Captive he was. I don't deny that. But hero he has yet to prove. An admiral's son does not a hero make. Unless his actions deem so.

 

It 100% does not cause me to pause, because I know what happens to the mind when it is put through that kind of stress. I was never on the Swiftboat campaign. They should be ashamed at what they said about Kerry. What Kerry did to receive his medals, and whatever kind of stress or mindset Kerry was in when he returned from Vietnam is besides the point. He risked his life serving his country when we all know he could have taken the high road and avoided deployment. Remember in 2000? The swiftboat pulled the same shit on McCain. I believe it was in one of the 2000 Pres debates that McCain told Bush that he crossed the line.

There is a lot of bullshit out there about both candidates. I think all we can do is disect their proposed policies, trace their history, and judge their character. I think McCain is pretty transparent, but there are issues regarding Obama that are cause for concern in my eyes. I do not think Palin is qualified for the job, but I don't chastise her the way many do for applying for the position. Out of the four candidates, I think a McCain/Biden ticket would be a good balance.

 

Yeah:

http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine06132008.html

I think I'd rather take my chances with Obama.[/SIZE]

 

My point was that Ayers was involved in terrorist acts, and even as late as 2004 he publicly claimed that he showed no regret for his actions and that his organization should have commited more. This does not sound like somebody that has put that past behind him. My reference to Abu Nidal was in response to your suggestion that ones actions in the past have no relevance on the present.

To what extent he was tortured makes no difference to me. He was in captivity for 5-1/2 years. I've seen guys mentally break down in less than weeks. McCains actions make him a hero in my eyes.

I find it interesting that you bring up "Admiral's son". There is typically only one reason that fact is ever brought up in an arugment.

 

If I knew how Obama would react in the same situation, and I thought that there was ever a chance of the Commander in Chief being held captive and tortured for information, I may feel the same way.

 

What is that reason that the admiral is brought up? I am a navy brat. I know why I bring it up.