Originally Posted By: whomod
 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
Slander, deceit, and divisive fear tactics are the traditional hallmark of Democrats, and I haven't seen that Obama has put himself above those tactics, either against Hillary, or in his attacks the last few days on McCain.




Man, you really don't pay attention to or you enthusiastically endorse ANYTHING the right wing does.


As usual, all you have is insults and mischaracterizations.

What exactly have I "endorsed"?

I already said that McCain is difficult to support on a number of issues, particularly amnesty for illegals, and the mess he's made of campaign finance reform with the McCain/Feingold bill.


 Originally Posted By: WB
The Hillary Clinton campaign publicized the islamic-dressed Osama photo.
Bill Clinton said that blacks are voting their skin color for Obama, rather than on the merits of qualification for president. Even the liberal media has criticized the Clintons for race-baiting.
Hillary Clinton pulled Rezko's 17-year relationship and ties to Obama out, and his representing a "slumlord".
And on and on. Not the Republicans.

i.e., you're a lying partisan sack of shit.



 Originally Posted By: Whomod


And that is a large part of why I don't support her and have called her a bitch here publicly. The other part is her denouncing gOP policies while having had voted FOR them. That doesn't make the rest of the right wing and some state gOP's innocent from spreading what may or may not have come from Clinton. Same pieces of shit if you ask me.


Uhh, most of the Democrat leadership, with the exception of Obama, ALSO voted for those GOP policies, particularly Iraq. The 9.2 trillion dollar deficit is largely liberal spending that Bush did not use his veto power to restrain as a true Republican would have. And before you rant further about the Iraq war, annual budgets under Bush have run higher in domestic spending than on the War on Terror.

I haven't seen the Republican candidates take any noteworthy shots at Hillary and Obama, preferring instead to just let them bloody each other.
Even conservative pundits such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are thrashing McCain more than Clinton or Obama. Coulter said she'd vote for Hillary over McCain !

So except for one guy who announce John McCain when he was on the stump campaigning, who said "Barack Hussein Obama" about 6 times (some nameless conservative radio commentator from the styx, who McCain immediately denounced and distanced himself from) I don't see this EEEEEEEVVVVVVIIIIIILLLLL Republican attack machine you keep harping about.




 Originally Posted By: Whomod


As for the "attack" on McCain. You mean THIS?:



That is not so much "attack" as stupidity on McCain's part that Obama handled expertly..


Obama said "Bush and McCain chose to invade Iraq", which slandered McCain as being 100% backing Bush in the invasion and conduct of the Iraq war. Whereas in truth, McCain has vocally opposed many aspects of Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq, ongoing, for years. McCain, like Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, has occasionally supported W.Bush regarding Iraq, and at least as often opposed Bush policy, and pressed for Rumsfeld's removal and a more effective strategy in Iraq, which finally happened with "the Surge".

Obama's remarks were mired in pedantic monotone, but were slanderous nonetheless. If Obama is going to raise such arguments as "Bush and McCain chose to invade Iraq," Obama could include John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and most of the other Democrats in Washington in that "chose to invade Iraq" characterization.

If Obama were a U.S. Senator in Sept 2002 when the Senate voted to invade Iraq, he probably would have voted "present" instead of "yes" or "no", as Obama did so often in the Illinois State Senate, where he served before his brief little field trip to Washington.
But yeah, Obama's an agent of change, not just another politician.


 Originally Posted By: Whomod

Still, i'm glad you've been reduced to frothing at the mouth insults. It brings a wide grin to my face. \:\) Really it does.


If you want to see "reduced to frothing at the mouth insults", just re-read the two lengthy apoplectic rantings of yours I quoted in my previous post.


 Originally Posted By: Whomod

I wonder, if Obama wins the Presidency and the south doesn't secede, will some of you guys down there reenact the '08 election for the next 150-some years?

Just asking.


More slander on your part.

 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

No, that's just more ad-hominem attack. You label anyone who disagrees with you a bigot, homophobe, hater, extremist, etc.

Your tactics come straight from the Moscow Central Committee:

 Quote:


Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi, or Anti-Semitic... the association will, after enough repitition, become "fact" in the public mind.


Slander as an alternative strategy to honest political debate.

The Revolution continues, even after the fall of the Soviet Union.


You insinuate some racist mindset for my resistance of Obama, while ignoring that I many times have praised widespread support of Colin Powell as a potential candidate, and have often quoted polls that show Powell would have nationally beaten any other candidate in 1992, 1996 and 2000, if he had chosen to run for president. Powell is a black man who is highly qualified and experienced for the job of President.

It's not about race, as you slanderously attempt to make it at every turn. It's about whether the candidate in question is a pandering liberal who will give amnesty to illegals (because they're reliable Democrat voters) and in other ways will raise taxes and expand the welfare state, in the testing of their pet liberal theories.
At the expense of U.S. sovereignty and taxpaying citizens.