Palin links Obama to "terrorist"

[Saya]

Sarah Palin accuses Obama of associating with 'a domestic terrorist'

US Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin has accused the Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, of associating with terrorists.

With the Republicans trailing in the polls a month before the presidential election, Mrs Palin said the time had come to take the gloves off.

She cited a New York Times report that Mr Obama had had links with a former member of a 1960s militant group.

A Democratic spokesman accused the Republicans of gutter politics.

Speaking to supporters in Colorado and later in a Los Angeles suburb, Alaska Governor Palin attacked Senator Obama over his link to Bill Ayers, a founder of the militant group Weather Underground, that waged a violent campaign against the Vietnam War.

The group was blamed for a number of bombings in the US in the 1960s.

Mrs Palin described Mr Obama as someone who saw the US "as being so imperfect... he is palling around with terrorists who would target their own country".

Mr Obama, who served on a charity board several years ago with Mr Ayers - now a professor at the University of Illinois - has denounced his radical activities.

Commentators say Mrs Palin's attack forms part of a broader Republican strategy to attack Mr Obama's character.

The Alaska governor also repeated her wish that the McCain campaign had not this week pulled out of the battleground state of Michigan, effectively conceding it to Mr Obama.

Mr Obama meanwhile attacked the healthcare plans of Republican presidential nominee John McCain.

Speaking to some 18,000 people at a rally in Virginia, Senator Obama described the Arizona senator's policy as "radical" and claimed 20 million people would be left out by it.

A spokesman for Mr McCain, who is in his home state preparing for Tuesday's second presidential debate, said that was "a bald-faced lie".

Healthcare is important to voters and the Obama campaign has unveiled new adverts attacking Mr McCain on the issue in every battleground state.

Mr Obama's Virginia rally came ahead of a Monday deadline for voters to register there and in more than a dozen other states, including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Florida.

Voter turnout could be vital in deciding the outcome of the 4 November presidential election.

Meanwhile, viewing figures show a record 69.9m people tuned in to watch Mrs Palin take part in Thursday's televised vice-presidential debate with Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

Have you ever in your life had a former coworker go on and commit a crime? Well apparently you are guilty by association. Especially if you're black and you're name rhymes with Osama.

I laughed when I first saw it then realized with horror that this tactic just might work.

[Duane]

Only in America!

[Despanan]

Jesus the republicans are grasping at straws.

Anyone remember when they tried to say Obama had insinuated Palin was a pig, because she had made that "What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit-bull? Lipstick." joke at the RNC, and a few days later, Obama happened to work the old "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig" saying when he was talking about an unrelated McCain policy?

yeah...

[Saya]

You'd think her associations with the Alaska Independence Party would be more damning.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I've met some weather underground.
They're the nicest people you could ever hope for. Some today repent of their tactics but still hold their beliefs. I respect that a lot.
Then again, no Republican would care about my opinion - except maybe Ron Paul.

[CptSternn]

It just shows the true nature of republicans in America. They will say/try anything to win elections - they don't care how big the lie is or who they have to sell it to.

Sad thing is, you know there probably is a group of Americans out there who are eating this up hook, line, and sinker.

[onedarkly1]

That goes for both parties CptSernn.

After all, why bash only one party when they are both filled with such traits. The recent bailout provides such a great example.
____________________________________
“He is a man obsessed, fulfilling an oath he made a life time ago, this is his city there is no demilitarized zone.”

[Slap Your Love]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I've met some weather underground.
They're the nicest people you could ever hope for. Some today repent of their tactics but still hold their beliefs. I respect that a lot.
Then again, no Republican would care about my opinion - except maybe Ron Paul.

I wish Ron Paul would've made the cut. :/

[Mealla]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

It just shows the true nature of republicans in America. They will say/try anything to win elections - they don't care how big the lie is or who they have to sell it to.

As Onedarkly said, that is sadly BOTH major political parties in America right now...the party I like to call the Republicrat party. And I would have been very excited to get Ron Paul in there. Really liked him.

As far as who I am going to vote for...normally I go libertarian, but I can't stand Barr for numerous reasons, I strongly disagree with a majority of Obama's policies and dislike his pretentiousness, and McCain also doesn't appear to have any satisfying answers to major problems in this country right now.

I'm currently looking into other third party candidates because I firmly believe in voting for who I think would be the best candidate, not who everyone else is going to vote for, nor for the "lesser of two evils." Besides, if enough people get the bollocks to vote third party, maybe we'll start seeing some better candidates presented. But I figure that's a ways off. Until then, I'll continue voting as my conscience dictates.

In closing, pardon for the rant, it's nothing personal, but the whole state of politics in this country right now irks me, and imo, Democrats are just as responsible for the mess as Republicans. The last thing we need is a more powerful central government, given that someone like Bush or worse will inevitably get in there and abuse said power.

As far as the article itself, mudslinging is sadly a normal part of politics these days.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by onedarkly1

That goes for both parties CptSernn.

After all, why bash only one party when they are both filled with such traits. The recent bailout provides such a great example.

I'm not a democrat fan either, but can you cite for me some recent examples of this? How is the bailout an example of this? I'm talking about the election and the use of whats now been aptly named 'swift boat' tactics.

Thats when a party blatantly lies to try and influence the voter, making up a false story and spending millions getting the public to believe it.

I'm not saying the democrats are saints or haven't stretched the truth, but I can't think of a single occurrence thus far of them trying this in this election or the last two.

I mean, obviously swift boat politicking happened on behalf of the repubs last election henceforth the name. Kerrys campaign didn't engage in such tactics either.

Its one thing to stretch the truth or selectively use examples that exemplify your point. Its another thing to make up a 100% falsity and have third parties sell it as scripture in efforts to influence an election.

[Kolibri]

In my opinion, Sarah Palin embarrassed herself. She kept twisting the questions into something else, redirecting them and just generallly not answering them. Stereotypical Politician shit. The Republican Party needs to stop attacking the Democrats and promote themselves in a positive light for once this campaign. I mean, I've seen only one positive campaign ad from them all season. All the rest are attacking everyone else and not really stating their shit too clearly if they do try and say anything at all.

[onedarkly1]

I gave an example, the bailout:

Members of congress get elected every two years. All the vote changing from, no to yes is a clear example of politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike, waiting until enough people in their districts could swallow it, and then voting for it, therefore doing whatever they have to in order to get elected (reelected in this case).

Another example would be looking at Hillary Clinton’s conduct in her recent attempt to get her parties nomination.

Don’t get me wrong I don’t have an issue with you, or anyone making fun of or criticizing Republicans, I was just making the point that both parties do it.

__________________________________________________ _____
“He is a man obsessed, fulfilling an oath he made a life time ago, this is his city there is no demilitarized zone.”

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I've met some weather underground.
They're the nicest people you could ever hope for. If by nice you mean: They like to blow shit up.

Fix't

[CptSternn]

Nothing wrong with blowing stuff up for a cause.

Whats funny is America is against bombings, yet America bombs everywhere.

Just because bombs are dropped from planes doesn't make it any different from bombs delivered in alternate ways.

You think every bomb McCain dropped from his plane landed on a VC soldier? You think all the bombs America dropped in Kosavo only took out bad guys and never destroyed any surrounding houses or businesses?

The only difference between a bomb dropped from a plane and a car bomb is the vehicle used to carry the bomb.

America goes out of its way to try and separate its state sponsored violence from other forms of violence. The reality is, a bomb is a bomb. A bullet is a bullet. You can claim your side is 'right' in your cause because you back it, but don't expect the rest of the world to swallow that tripe.

Either you support people being able to stand up for what they believe in, or you don't.

I support the values of the Weather Underground - they had good values as an organisation. As far as them being called 'terrorists', put it this way, their bombs caused a hell of a lot less death, pain, destruction, and misery than the bombs McCain himself was personally responsible for using.

How many people do you think McCain is personally responsible for killing?

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by onedarkly1

I gave an example, the bailout:

Members of congress get elected every two years. All the vote changing from, no to yes is a clear example of politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike, waiting until enough people in their districts could swallow it, and then voting for it, therefore doing whatever they have to in order to get elected (reelected in this case).

Another example would be looking at Hillary Clinton’s conduct in her recent attempt to get her parties nomination.

Don’t get me wrong I don’t have an issue with you, or anyone making fun of or criticizing Republicans, I was just making the point that both parties do it.

Thats by no means what I or anyone else was talking about. I am talking about swift boat attacks, not about using a majority to pass legislation. Apples and oranges.

The dems have yet to engage in swift boat attacks.

[stolide]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

America goes out of its way to try and separate its state sponsored violence from other forms of violence. The reality is, a bomb is a bomb. A bullet is a bullet. You can claim your side is 'right' in your cause because you back it, but don't expect the rest of the world to swallow that tripe.

You can and people have been for as long history books record. The only differences were the weapons and the causes. People are lazy and will believe what is convenient. The whole world might not buy it, but a lot of the people will.

Tis ashame we live in a world of idiots that go out of their way to think as little as possible...

Edit: I agree with you on the statement about violence. For some reason, people I know (I'm in america) seem to think killing someone in a war is different than killing someone outside of a war. I only agree with them to the point that in war, you agree that you are going to attempt to kill each other, but it is still murder.

[Despanan]

Stern, You DO realize how massively intellectually bankrupt that statement is don't you?

For the purposes of this argument, I'm going to ignore the politics and just look for internal logical consistency in your statements:

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Nothing wrong with blowing stuff up for a cause.

ie: Violence is justified if your cause is just. (Context matters.)

Whats funny is America is against bombings, yet America bombs everywhere.

Just because bombs are dropped from planes doesn't make it any different from bombs delivered in alternate ways.

You think every bomb McCain dropped from his plane landed on a VC soldier? You think all the bombs America dropped in Kosavo only took out bad guys and never destroyed any surrounding houses or businesses?

The only difference between a bomb dropped from a plane and a car bomb is the vehicle used to carry the bomb.

I'd say the first statement is technically incorrect, as 'America' is not, as a whole against bombings, and they don't bomb "Everywhere". I can see how you're exaggerating to make your point, so I'll assume the sentiment is:

"The American society is okay with violence as long as it's in the proper context (ie: Dropped from planes, by americans, against enemies) But Violence is the same regardless of the delivery system/target/intention. As proof, McCain "must" have accidentally hit civilian targets, McCain dropping a bomb and hitting a military target or accidentally hitting civilian target is the same as the weather underground building a bomb and blowing up a civilian target in their own country."

The sentiment here is that context is irrelevant.

America goes out of its way to try and separate its state sponsored violence from other forms of violence. The reality is, a bomb is a bomb. A bullet is a bullet. You can claim your side is 'right' in your cause because you back it, but don't expect the rest of the world to swallow that tripe.

Once again, you start out claiming that when it comes to violence, context is irrelevant, and you imply that believing you are "right" to cause violence for what you believe in is "tripe" to "The rest of the world". (Which of course contradicts your first statement that violence for a cause is justified).

Unless of course, you're stating that America's belief that they are "right" to cause violence is "Tripe to the rest of the world" because their cause is "wrong", but that is internally inconsistent with your second statement because you've just stated that context is irrelevant.

Either you support people being able to stand up for what they believe in, or you don't.

Here you're essentially saying: "All causes are equal and context and method are irrelevant." I believe the implication here is that if one believes that people can stand up for themselves, one must then support their right to use violence in all cases.

I support the values of the Weather Underground - they had good values as an organisation. As far as them being called 'terrorists', put it this way, their bombs caused a hell of a lot less death, pain, destruction, and misery than the bombs McCain himself was personally responsible for using.

How many people do you think McCain is personally responsible for killing?

But now, suddenly, in the case of the Weather Underground, context is relevant again. Suddenly pain, death and destruction are put on a sliding scale! and the implication here, is that because their bombs were smaller than McCain's bombs, and they killed less people, they are less of a "terrorist" than McCain.

I think I have made my point. Stern, all politics aside, the sentiments that you have expressed in this post (and many others I have seen) are mind-bogglingly inconsistent. You become very post-modernist and claim that context, impact, and intention are irrelevant when it is convenient for you, and then you use the very things you've just said don't matter to justify attacks against America.

So what is it Stern? Are all causes equal and justified? Are all methods the same? Or does context, intention, and method matter? You can't have it both ways.

[onedarkly1]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Thats by no means what I or anyone else was talking about. I am talking about swift boat attacks, not about using a majority to pass legislation. Apples and oranges.

The dems have yet to engage in swift boat attacks.

Did you even see my comment about Hillary Clinton or do you selectively read?

That being said you may be correct that Obama has not used "swift boat tactics" and that appears to be a specific character issue, about him, which I personally respect. That sadly in America is the exception not the rule.

Take a look at Bill Cliton's two presidential races.

__________________________________________________ _
"I died a long time ago."

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Despanan

For the purposes of this argument, I'm going to ignore the politics and just look for internal logical consistency in your statements:

That was exactly the point I was making. It's not logical inconsistencies with my statements, its logical inconsistencies with American foriegn policy. Personally, I believe everyone should stand up for what they believe in, and if that means bombing someone then so be it.

I'd say the first statement is technically incorrect, as 'America' is not, as a whole against bombings, and they don't bomb "Everywhere". I can see how you're exaggerating to make your point, so I'll assume the sentiment is:

"The American society is okay with violence as long as it's in the proper context (ie: Dropped from planes, by americans, against enemies) But Violence is the same regardless of the delivery system/target/intention. As proof, McCain "must" have accidentally hit civilian targets, McCain dropping a bomb and hitting a military target or accidentally hitting civilian target is the same as the weather underground building a bomb and blowing up a civilian target in their own country."

What exactly is a 'miltary target'? In places like Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Kosavo, Iraq etc. - all places the US droppped bombs they didn't just drop bombs on military outposts and barracks, they bombed neighborhoods, factories, bridges, power stations, water treatment plants. Are those military targets? Do they become 'valid military targets' once you get a plane? There were little if any military targets in the aforementioned countries, all which got bombed often, daily even, during the couse of the various conflicts.

Once again, you start out claiming that when it comes to violence, context is irrelevant, and you imply that believing you are "right" to cause violence for what you believe in is "tripe" to "The rest of the world". (Which of course contradicts your first statement that violence for a cause is justified).

Again, your missing the point. Either you say ALL bombings are justified or NONE are. You can't pick and choose and then expect the rest of the world to fall in line.

Unless of course, you're stating that America's belief that they are "right" to cause violence is "Tripe to the rest of the world" because their cause is "wrong", but that is internally inconsistent with your second statement because you've just stated that context is irrelevant.

The Americans belief that they alone have some right to kill indiscriminately while condemning everyone else for the exact same actions is the view the rest of the world now takes issue with. Much like bush no the news complaining about Russia the other week - I have a clip on YouTube of him saying, and I quote 'countries cannot just go invading other countries, its not right'. Oh the irony.

Here you're essentially saying: "All causes are equal and context and method are irrelevant." I believe the implication here is that if one believes that people can stand up for themselves, one must then support their right to use violence in all cases.

Thats it in a nutshell. Sure you might not give two shits about the plight of a small third world country with only a few thousand people living there, but their rights and freedom you can bet are the most important thing to them. Therefore, as an outsider you shouldn't be judging them or condemning their actions, especially if you live in a country which routinely engages in the same behaviour.

But now, suddenly, in the case of the Weather Underground, context is relevant again. Suddenly pain, death and destruction are put on a sliding scale! and the implication here, is that because their bombs were smaller than McCain's bombs, and they killed less people, they are less of a "terrorist" than McCain.

The Weather Underground fired off a handful of bombs, which barely had any effect on society then or now. McCain was part of a air campaign which destroyed the infrastructure of a nation, to this date it not only has yet to recover, and children still die on a regular basis because of unexploded ordianance. We know how many were hurt by the Weather Underground, whereas we can't even begin to put a number on the amount of women and children that McCain is personally responsible for killing. In this case, yes there is a difference. Someone letting off a pipe bomb vs. a 7 year air campaign - there is a bit of a difference there.

I think I have made my point. Stern, all politics aside, the sentiments that you have expressed in this post (and many others I have seen) are mind-bogglingly inconsistent. You become very post-modernist and claim that context, impact, and intention are irrelevant when it is convenient for you, and then you use the very things you've just said don't matter to justify attacks against America.

I like how you categorise them as attacks on America. That implies I attack the people. I have issues with the government. Doesn't mean I hate Americans.

So what is it Stern? Are all causes equal and justified? Are all methods the same? Or does context, intention, and method matter? You can't have it both ways.

No you can't I think I aptly made my point that if you support a cause, then go for it. That being said, don't complain when the other side uses the same techniques against you.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Sternn, if my poor ass ever gets cash enough to fly to Ireland, I wanna have a beer with you.

[Methadrine]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

What exactly is a 'miltary target'? In places like Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Kosavo, Iraq etc. - all places the US droppped bombs they didn't just drop bombs on military outposts and barracks, they bombed neighborhoods, factories, bridges, power stations, water treatment plants. Are those military targets? Do they become 'valid military targets' once you get a plane? There were little if any military targets in the aforementioned countries, all which got bombed often, daily even, during the couse of the various conflicts.

Destroying the infrastructure of a country is listed among the first steps of the "how to wage war" guide (there's a name for it, but it slips my mind at the moment). A crippled country doesn't last long. It's usually in most countries military doctrines.

Now, if we want to mention really foul bombings then one should mention the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII. Definitely NOT military targets, but targets chosen for the greatest demoralizing effect and to best display the power of the then-modern weapon.

[Despanan]

It was not my intention to imply that you disliked the American people, (though I suppose it would be easy for someone to draw that conclusion)

Originally Posted by CptSternn

The Weather Underground fired off a handful of bombs, which barely had any effect on society then or now. McCain was part of a air campaign which destroyed the infrastructure of a nation, to this date it not only has yet to recover, and children still die on a regular basis because of unexploded ordianance. We know how many were hurt by the Weather Underground, whereas we can't even begin to put a number on the amount of women and children that McCain is personally responsible for killing. In this case, yes there is a difference. Someone letting off a pipe bomb vs. a 7 year air campaign - there is a bit of a difference there.

Not according to what you just said:

I believe everyone should stand up for what they believe in, and if that means bombing someone then so be it.

Am I missing something here? Stern, I don't necessarily have any problem with you taking the "All violence is justified if it's for a cause" stance (other than I categorically disagree with it, but that's an argument for another time) But you do realize that position is essentially "might makes right"?

Similarly, if you do embrace this sort of position on ethics, then you can't morally object to say, a country attacking another country and stealing their oil? Because if all things are equal, and all violence is justified if it's "For a cause" Then any government can do anything they want to anyone as long as they have the strength to, and it's perfectly okay.

[Despanan]

Gothic.net ate half my post for some reason, here's my other responses:

Originally Posted by CptSternn

What exactly is a 'miltary target'? In places like Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Kosavo, Iraq etc. - all places the US droppped bombs they didn't just drop bombs on military outposts and barracks, they bombed neighborhoods, factories, bridges, power stations, water treatment plants. Are those military targets? Do they become 'valid military targets' once you get a plane? There were little if any military targets in the aforementioned countries, all which got bombed often, daily even, during the couse of the various conflicts.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Again, your missing the point. Either you say ALL bombings are justified or NONE are. You can't pick and choose and then expect the rest of the world to fall in line.

I disagree, But that would be bringing politics into this and that wasn't really my point.

The Americans belief that they alone have some right to kill indiscriminately while condemning everyone else for the exact same actions is the view the rest of the world now takes issue with. Much like bush no the news complaining about Russia the other week - I have a clip on YouTube of him saying, and I quote 'countries cannot just go invading other countries, its not right'. Oh the irony.

I don't think that Americans actually have that view, nor do I really think that that's what the world is taking issue with, but once again this is completely irrelevant to the argument at hand. I'm not arguing politics with you, I'm talking about the inconsitencies I'm seeing in your post. Please stay on topic.

Thats it in a nutshell. Sure you might not give two shits about the plight of a small third world country with only a few thousand people living there, but their rights and freedom you can bet are the most important thing to them. Therefore, as an outsider you shouldn't be judging them or condemning their actions, especially if you live in a country which routinely engages in the same behaviour.

Where you happen to live has nothing to do with your ability to make moral or ethical judgements nor does being a hippocrit. If a doctor who smokes tells you that "smoking is bad for your lungs" does that suddenly make smoking no longer a health issue?

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Am I missing something here? Stern, I don't necessarily have any problem with you taking the "All violence is justified if it's for a cause" stance (other than I categorically disagree with it, but that's an argument for another time) But you do realize that position is essentially "might makes right"?

Similarly, if you do embrace this sort of position on ethics, then you can't morally object to say, a country attacking another country and stealing their oil? Because if all things are equal, and all violence is justified if it's "For a cause" Then any government can do anything they want to anyone as long as they have the strength to, and it's perfectly okay.

I'm very much against might makes right, but do acknowledge that force is needed to secure freedom in many situations.

Using force to protect yourself, your country, or your freedom is something I whole heartily support. Using force to impose your will upon a weaker group of people is something I do not support.

If that weaker group decides then to rise up and kick the crap out of the imperialist oppressors, well, that would be something I support.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I don't think that Americans actually have that view, nor do I really think that that's what the world is taking issue with, but once again this is completely irrelevant to the argument at hand. I'm not arguing politics with you, I'm talking about the inconsitencies I'm seeing in your post. Please stay on topic.

This right here was my original point in a nutshell. Many Americans do have that mentality. They wanted to invade Iraq. They want to bomb Iran. Not all Americans, but 25% (the same 25% that still think bush is feckin' brilliant).

Those Americans are pro-war, except when it inconveniences them. They bitch about IEDs as dirty warfare, yet forget America invade Iraq and dropped tonnes of bombs on schools, factories, water treatment plants, hospitals, etc.

They supported Vietnam, yet thought the VC 'fought dirty'.

The reality is, the point I was trying to convey, is that there is a dual standard in the minds of at least 25% of Americans, a duality that is easily seen in the current American foreign policy.

You can't support dropping bombs from planes then bitch when someone fires off a car bomb. It's all the one.