Once again, there you go repeating what Bill O'Reilly says word for word. Way to follow the script. First, you say Obama is a terrorist. Then the liberals say that Sarah Palin is married to a guy who wants Alaska to secede from the United States. The you mention how Obama's middle name is Hussein. Then the liberals bring up how McCain just pulled out of Michigan because the people of Michigan have decided that Obama is more qualified than McCain, and on and on it goes. I stop by your page once or twice a month (you're welcome) and every single time I read the exact words I heard on Fox News just hours before. You should really just contact Bill O'reilly and just offer to type up his transcripts for him. By the way, Indiana is going blue this year. Not that it matters to me, I'm not a Democrat either.
Problem is Gary I haven't said Obama is a terrorist. I also don't mention Obama's middle name as I think that's irrelevant.
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
As for your complaint about originality *yawn* been there done that. I notice you take that route, rather than address the issues raised.
Actually, Gary. The problem with Mark is he and the others he reads are all up in arms about Obama's scant associations with the leader of an organization that had members who blew up various public toilets on Capitol Hill, while they are complacent to McCain's associations with people involved with obstructing Congress' review of the Iran-Contra affair (eg. Liddy, North, Maj. Gen. Singlaub) and his large campaign contributions from a CEO who helped distribute funds to Columbia terrorists (Carl Lindner Jr), to name a couple of "shady" characters.
Of course, the "guilt by association" game is a weak one to play. I am sure even as regular citizens, one of us has managed to cross paths with some "detestable", "shady" character or person. When such a thing enters the political arena, it pretty much becomes six degrees of desparation.
Now, I do thoroughly enjoy the intellectual dishonesty spewing from McCain. Fannie/Freddie isn't the main reason for the current economic problems. There were a lot of players involved, and plenty of blame to go around. Singling Fannie/Freddie for simply backing subprime loans paints an incomplete picture. Fannie/Freddie didn't make those loans with customers, mortgage brokers did. And Wall Street packaged such mortgage-backed securities as worthwhile investments. It's a rats nest, and playing a "what party is involved" game would lead everyone to the conclusion that "parties" weren't involved. The root cause is the politicis of special interests, an ailment that affects both major political parties.
But of course Mark et al. don't desire to address reality, instead building strawmen and incomplete pictures about what's going on in the real world.
Only the uinformed or intentionally ignorant will fall for your false claim of "scant associations" or your dishonest characterization of Ayers and Dohrn's intentions and activities as "blew up various public toilets".
That you try say that those who attempted to stop Communists, misguided as the method may have been, and a failure of courage that resulted in making protection payments are the same as people who tried to change politics in the United States by killing Americans. Obama has also lied about the extent of his involvement with Dorhn and Ayers.
That you have to stoop to such dishonesty to force your moral equivalence argument, reveals only your depth of depravity.
You're also lying about my views on the financial crisis. Anyone can see that my last reply to you at that post shows that I know the situation is more complex and includes Republicans. That however, does not change the facts regarding the obstruction by Dodd, Frank and other Democracts.
But lie, deflect and obfuscate is quite normal for you.
You claim that I lack intellectual honesty, but you attempt to implicate Ayers and Dohrn with killing Americans, which they didn't. The bombs were intended for (and only did) property damage. There is a significant difference between bombing people (say, what happened in Operation Condor under Kissinger's guidance which killed Americans and other nationalities) and what happened with the radical group Ayers and Dohrn associated with.
And "scant associations" is a relevant description in contrast to your overblown attempts to make it sound like Ayers molded Obama:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/0...r=1&
oref=slogin
http://www.factcheck.org/
electio...bill_ayers.html
But let us play this game of intellectual honesty. You apply a certain criteria to one party, so let us apply the same level of scrutiny to the other party. What we see here is a dangerous trend:
McCain-Palin and Kissinger: http://
naturalskeptic.blogspot.c...terrorists.html
Palin and anti-government radicals: http://
naturalskeptic.blogspot.c...ssociation.html
Your microcosm is laughable.
Commenting by HaloScan
