SilentReader wrote:
I'm still waiting for your response on the indicted Rezko-Obama, admitted-terrorist Ayers-Obama and anti-semite anti-America anti-White Pastor Wright-Obama dubious connections, since he's your Candidate-without-scrutiny for President.

First of all, I'm not the one who is trying to portray guilt-by-campaign-donation, you are. That is why I asked YOU whether you think Bush is also guilty for accepting campaign contributions from Rezko? In other words, do you have one standard, or two?

Me, I prefer to talk about a candidate's positions and policies, not about who contributed to their campaign. To do the latter is a smear reeking of desperation born out of an inability to identify anything of substance. A candidate has as much control over who sends them checks as you do over the weather. And personally, I think any candidate should use any money that they legitimately and legally receive from any campaign donator because the act of campaign donation is a protected form of speech afforded to any and all Americans.

You see, I have one standard. How many do you have, SilentReader?

Second, you are waiting for a response to a question that you have never posed. Please state a question before you claim to await a response. I'd be more than happy to answer any question you put directly to me, and always have been so.

Not to mention the latest Obama bittergate. Too bad he couldn't quite polish up those latest bigoted comments of his.

Judging from your posts, Obama is dead on.

SilentReader is never consistent, RW. SR lies, I think, from the sheer enjoyhment of it, then calls you a liar. It's amazing SR makes a living at doing this, because no one is reading what she is posting until they can read her own words. What a waste of money!

RogerWilco wrote:
SilentReader wrote:
I'm still waiting for your response on the indicted Rezko-Obama, admitted-terrorist Ayers-Obama and anti-semite anti-America anti-White Pastor Wright-Obama dubious connections, since he's your Candidate-without-scrutiny for President.

First of all, I'm not the one who is trying to portray guilt-by-campaign-donation, you are. That is why I asked YOU whether you think Bush is also guilty for accepting campaign contributions from Rezko? In other words, do you have one standard, or two?

Me, I prefer to talk about a candidate's positions and policies, not about who contributed to their campaign. To do the latter is a smear reeking of desperation born out of an inability to identify anything of substance. A candidate has as much control over who sends them checks as you do over the weather. And personally, I think any candidate should use any money that they legitimately and legally receive from any campaign donator because the act of campaign donation is a protected form of speech afforded to any and all Americans.

You see, I have one standard. How many do you have, SilentReader?

One.

Firstly, this is guilty by Obama's long-term association with anti-America left-wing dividers like admitted terrorist Bill Ayers who after bombing the Pentagon and other governmental facilities, where people were killed, as recently as 2001 he said he should have done more. Obama sat on the Woods Fund board with Ayers for three years and even went to seek out his political support. Ayers should be in jail for what he did (he got off on a technicality) instead of sitting on any board or teaching at any college. This is guilty by long-term association with a pastor who preached damning America on a regular basis, among other slurs against White people, and Obama listened to his maniacal rants for 20 years. (By the way, now Rev. Wright is building a 1.6 million dollar house in the middle of a White community right next to a golf course.) This is guilty by Obama's own bitter elitist comments (when he thought no one was listening) about people clinging to their guns and religion. What Obama was doing was projecting his own bitterness against America and Americans who are not like him despite the fact that he is where he is because this is America. The greatest country in the world. Finally, this is guilty by his long-time association with indicted Tony Rezko and his dealings with him and his wife (who purchased the land next to his 1.6 million dollar home)because apparently Obama couldn't afford it. Obama sent government business Rezko's way and in return Rezko contributed to his campaigns. You might say it was tit for tat using the people's money.

Secondly, you cannot just talk about policies and positions and not talk about the character of the man as illustrated by his long-time associations and previous actions. After all he hasn't got much of a record in politics does he? And what record he does have is mediocre at best. So, this is not about who sent him checks. This is about his many dubious long-time associations with questionable people.

This man will be known only through watching him very closely in his fight for his party's nomination. Quite frankly this is going to be the only way we will know him. No telling what would have happened if he hadn't come head to head with Hillary Clinton.

May the fight go on.

SR, will McCain bring our troops home (or redeploy them to Afghanistan to fight the real enemy?

No, only Obama will do that.

Will McCain roll back the tax cuts the fat cats got under Bush?

No, only Obama will do that.

Will McCain fight to re-prioritize the spending in this nation away from Haliburton no-bid contracts in Iraq and toward building roads in America?

No, only Obama will do that.

Keeping worrying about Wright, flag pins and comments about bitter gun owners.

You will wake up in January 2009 with Obama in the WH and even bigger Dem majorities in the House and Senate to get the job done.

The Truth Typhoon wrote:
SR, will McCain bring our troops home (or redeploy them to Afghanistan to fight the real enemy?

No, only Obama will do that.

Will McCain roll back the tax cuts the fat cats got under Bush?

No, only Obama will do that.

Will McCain fight to re-prioritize the spending in this nation away from Haliburton no-bid contracts in Iraq and toward building roads in America?

No, only Obama will do that.

Keeping worrying about Wright, flag pins and comments about bitter gun owners.

You will wake up in January 2009 with Obama in the WH and even bigger Dem majorities in the House and Senate to get the job done.

That's a bold prediction, that StupidReader will wake up. She has never gotten over her disappointment about the Publisher's Clearinghouse letters she used to get that proclaimed her a winner.

SilentReader wrote:
...you cannot just talk about policies and positions and not talk about the character of the man as illustrated by his long-time associations and previous actions.
Long term associations, huh? Well, RushReader, how about McCain's dealings and long term association with John Keating, and the "Keating Five Scandal", for just one example.

During Mr. McCain's four years in the House, Mr. Keating, his family and his business associates contributed heavily to his political campaigns. The banker gave Mr. McCain free rides on his private jet, a violation of Congressional ethics rules. (he later said it was an oversight and paid for the trips). They vacationed together in the Bahamas. And in 1986, the year Mr. McCain was elected to the Senate, his wife joined Mr. Keating in investing in an Arizona shopping mall.

Mr. Keating had taken over the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association and used its federally insured deposits to gamble on risky real estate and other investments. He pressed Mr. McCain and other lawmakers to help hold back federal banking regulators.

For years, Mr. McCain complied. At Mr. Keating's request, he wrote several letters to regulators, introduced legislation and helped secure the nomination of a Keating associate to a banking regulatory board.

By early 1987, though, the thrift was careering toward disaster. Mr. McCain agreed to join several senators, eventually known as the Keating Five, for two private meetings with regulators to urge them to ease up. "Why didn't I fully grasp the unusual appearance of such a meeting?" Mr. McCain later lamented in his memoir.

When Lincoln went bankrupt in 1989 - one of the biggest collapses of the savings and loan crisis, costing taxpayers $3.4 billion - the Keating Five became infamous. The scandal sent Mr. Keating to prison and ended the careers of three senators, who were rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee in 1991 for intervening. Mr. McCain, who had been a less aggressive advocate for Mr. Keating than the others, was reprimanded only for "poor judgment" and was re-elected the next year.

Some people involved think Mr. McCain got off too lightly. William Black, one of the banking regulators the senator met with, argued that Mrs. McCain's investment with Mr. Keating created an obvious conflict of interest for her husband. (Mr. McCain had said a prenuptial agreement divided the couple's assets.) He should not be able to "put this behind him," Mr. Black said. "It sullied his integrity."

Mr. McCain has since described the episode as a unique humiliation. "If I do not repress the memory, its recollection still provokes a vague but real feeling that I had lost something very important," he wrote in his memoir. "I still wince thinking about it."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html

Wow, horrible judgment. Not the type of guy I want answering the phone at 3:00 A.M. I certainly have questions about his honesty and integrity. Sure looks to me like he was bought off at the time. You can't use "guilt by association" in regard to Democrats without having it apply equally to Republicans, now can you? Well, I know you think you can, but you can't. To use your logic, are we to believe nothing illegal or unethical was going on here? Are we to believe there was nothing fishy going on when they went on vacations together and when McCain's wife invested with Keating in a shopping mall? Are we to believe there was no "quid pro quo" going on? He had to have known what Keating was doing at the time, didn't he?

Oh, BTW, speaking of "guilt by association", there is the issue of the alleged relationship with the lobbyist, Ms. Iseman. Certainly a lot of smoke there, isn't there?

Further, how about him having an affair while married to his first wife? Does that offend your tender conservative sensibilities? And what does that say about sound judgment?

John McCain was talking about his presidential ambitions when the question came.

"You had an affair during your first marriage," CNN's Bernard Shaw said to the Arizona senator. "The sitting president is being impeached for his conduct with Monica Lewinsky. Should a politician's private acts be part of public discourse?"

"Let me say that I am responsible for the breakup of my first marriage," McCain replied. "I will not discuss or talk about that any more than that. If someone wants to criticize me for that, that's fine..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/rules021299.htm

McCain is not exactly being truthful in his statement above, either. Someone else was also responsible for that breakup of his marriage. His current wife Cindy...she was the one he was having the "relationship" with.

People who live in glass houses should not cast stones, RushReader. McCain's house has plenty of windows to break, too.