There is a difference between facts and implications, but it can be hard to discern when emotions are near the zenith. Fear is the hot emotion of the day. Amazingly, several bloggers have defended the Palin/McCain attacks of late.
It is perfectly acceptable to bring up Obama’s association with Ayers who is a former terrorist. Keep in mind the man is not a domestic terrorist now. He is not on the run. He is not evading the FBI. He is not being raped in a jail cell in Cuba for his crimes. He is a free man, a professor at a university. Obviously, he is no longer a threat to the American public or he would be held indefinitely.
The problem is when the Palin/McCain campaign make implications that Obama is a towel-headed, America-hating, grenade-toting Muslim terrorist. They continue to brand him as “different” which is their way of covertly spreading the seeds of racism and hatred. Palin/McCain are intentionally feeding and perpetuating hatred. It is all in the name of elections.
McCain himself, said years ago that anyone who went negative simply had nothing to say and no vision of the future. The video has been on the news. I have to agree, but now that we are all certain that the fundamentals of the economy are not strong, and the Palin/McCain numbers are dropping, they are switching to the non-message of sick em.
On the news last night, my wife watched as Palin worked the crowed into lather, trying to erroneously make Obama out to be a terrorist. The crowd shouted “terrorist” and one person even shouted, “Kill him!” It doesn't get any more negative than that.
Just because Palin is connected to a pastor who declared a woman a witch and had her run out of town, does not mean that Palin agrees with him. She is connected to him, and that is factual, but it would be wrong to try to spin her as a witch hunter who supports the Salem Witch Trials. She is also connected to some book banning issues, but there is no real evidence to suggest she actually supported banning any books. The connection is factual, but any spin to say she wants to ban books is not supported. It would be wrong to start attacking and labeling her as a book banner on the campaign trail. Just because Obama knows the man does not mean he agrees with him. In fact he has been on the record as denouncing Ayers some time ago.
Here is a more elementary picture for those of you who defend the attacks:
Kids can play a friendly game of freeze tag. They can have teams and play against one another, each team working together to defeat the other. In the end, they can go back to class and be friends. No harm and no foul.
Or, they can play Smear the Queer. Do you remember that game? When one person has the ball and the others spend time tackling and smearing the person into the ground. Not so much a friendly game and many times it ends up with injuries and hurt feelings. It’s not designed to be nice.
So it is with the Palin/McCain “terrorist” attacks of Obama. It’s not a debate on the issues. It cannot be a debate on the issues because Palin/McCain are losing that battle. It is a version of Smear the Queer, a hateful attack meant to do damage and ruin a person.
What they are doing is a … smear campaign … in the true sense of the word.
I have heard some claim that to have their beliefs challenged and questioned is to mount a smear campaign against them. This has come up more than once lately. Questioning and challenging and debating are nothing of the kind. Presenting facts is not either.
The hateful and racist attacks of Palin/McCain are real smear campaigns based on half-truths and innuendo in order to spark racism and religious fear in the ignorant lambie-pies who already lean in such directions.
It used to be Country First and no negative campaigning. Those days are clearly gone and in place we have a win-at-all costs campaign. If those attending the Palin/McCain rallies are labeling Obama a terrorist and calling for his death, then something is amiss. There's nothing presidential or honorable or Christian about that.
It is perfectly acceptable to bring up Obama’s association with Ayers who is a former terrorist. Keep in mind the man is not a domestic terrorist now. He is not on the run. He is not evading the FBI. He is not being raped in a jail cell in Cuba for his crimes. He is a free man, a professor at a university. Obviously, he is no longer a threat to the American public or he would be held indefinitely.
The problem is when the Palin/McCain campaign make implications that Obama is a towel-headed, America-hating, grenade-toting Muslim terrorist. They continue to brand him as “different” which is their way of covertly spreading the seeds of racism and hatred. Palin/McCain are intentionally feeding and perpetuating hatred. It is all in the name of elections.
McCain himself, said years ago that anyone who went negative simply had nothing to say and no vision of the future. The video has been on the news. I have to agree, but now that we are all certain that the fundamentals of the economy are not strong, and the Palin/McCain numbers are dropping, they are switching to the non-message of sick em.
On the news last night, my wife watched as Palin worked the crowed into lather, trying to erroneously make Obama out to be a terrorist. The crowd shouted “terrorist” and one person even shouted, “Kill him!” It doesn't get any more negative than that.
Just because Palin is connected to a pastor who declared a woman a witch and had her run out of town, does not mean that Palin agrees with him. She is connected to him, and that is factual, but it would be wrong to try to spin her as a witch hunter who supports the Salem Witch Trials. She is also connected to some book banning issues, but there is no real evidence to suggest she actually supported banning any books. The connection is factual, but any spin to say she wants to ban books is not supported. It would be wrong to start attacking and labeling her as a book banner on the campaign trail. Just because Obama knows the man does not mean he agrees with him. In fact he has been on the record as denouncing Ayers some time ago.
Here is a more elementary picture for those of you who defend the attacks:
Kids can play a friendly game of freeze tag. They can have teams and play against one another, each team working together to defeat the other. In the end, they can go back to class and be friends. No harm and no foul.
Or, they can play Smear the Queer. Do you remember that game? When one person has the ball and the others spend time tackling and smearing the person into the ground. Not so much a friendly game and many times it ends up with injuries and hurt feelings. It’s not designed to be nice.
So it is with the Palin/McCain “terrorist” attacks of Obama. It’s not a debate on the issues. It cannot be a debate on the issues because Palin/McCain are losing that battle. It is a version of Smear the Queer, a hateful attack meant to do damage and ruin a person.
What they are doing is a … smear campaign … in the true sense of the word.
I have heard some claim that to have their beliefs challenged and questioned is to mount a smear campaign against them. This has come up more than once lately. Questioning and challenging and debating are nothing of the kind. Presenting facts is not either.
The hateful and racist attacks of Palin/McCain are real smear campaigns based on half-truths and innuendo in order to spark racism and religious fear in the ignorant lambie-pies who already lean in such directions.
It used to be Country First and no negative campaigning. Those days are clearly gone and in place we have a win-at-all costs campaign. If those attending the Palin/McCain rallies are labeling Obama a terrorist and calling for his death, then something is amiss. There's nothing presidential or honorable or Christian about that.
Posts
5 comments:
Well said.
Jeremy,
You bring up an excellent point. In the past (when I did not have a candidate that I really identified with) I was drawn to third parties. I found more in common there.
I have said nothing of the third parties this go around. Perhaps I should have. I'm glad you brought this issue to my attention.
Would double jeopardy apply with Ayers? He was brought to trial but the wiretap evidence was ruled out so they can't use that as evidence. He may not be a physical threat but I believe that there is an ideological threat. If (and I realize this is a big if) there are facts behind the statement, for example Obama sat on the board with a person who bombed the pentagon, that should not be an attack, that is truth. It is not an attack if I say that he sat in a pew with someone who said that the US Government started the AIDS epidemic, because he did. What it goes back to is his judgement. I go into this a little further on my blog: cogentdigressions@myblogsite.com
If a man commits adultery with his wife, the first question asked is have there been any others. It takes one time and the trust will be brought into doubt.
In response to: The crowd shouted “terrorist” and one person even shouted, “Kill him!” It doesn't get any more negative than that.
From a conservative perpective, those people are idiots and don't represent me or any rational human being.
I have added a new association to my list of people that Obama relates with which question whether or not Obama has been vetted by the MSM:
Raul Odinga - He is the head of the Socialist Opposition Party in Kenya. He supported this gentleman during his 2006 campaign using US tax dollars. This gentleman was arrested in the 1980's for a coup attempt in the soviet union. He has signed a memo of understanding to install muslim law in order for the support of the muslim and will withdraw the help of Kenya with terrorism support if elected. This gentleman is a member of the same tribe that Obama is from and they are related.
My present list of associatiation includes:
Rezko-Felon
Ayers-Terrorist
Odinga-Socialist(at best)
Flager
Wright
I am not playing guilt by association, I just want to know why the MSM isn't reporting this?
These people are radicals and an assoication with any of these people by McCain would kill his political career.
Its not what I know about Obama that bothers me, it is what I don't know. I do not hate the man, I just believe these questions should be addressed.
Just some thoughts.
I think these are serious questions to talk about. There are facts that aren't reported to the people. Especially since my tax dollars were used to support him. You can visit youtube to see some videos regarding their relationship.
What are your thoughts?
Ryan,
Your accusations are unsupported. Where is your proof? Where did you get this information? You provided no links.
Post a Comment