It was not a good idea to keep women from voting (OK, I might have to think about that LOL) but we changed the Constitution just like we did with regard to slavery. If you don’t like the rules, change them the way the founders set forth. There was no hassle on McCain’s birth (there was a hassle by the left who wanted him disqualified) because he is qualified under the law. He was born to two Americans at a military location. That is in the law. Of course Democrats would change for Arnold. He is one of them (RINO) and Democrats never follow the rules.

That is why it is important. Rules are rules.

No religious test for office. I don’t care one way or the other but it goes to character. We have written proof he was, at one time, an adherent of Islam. He said he never was. He said he never worked for ACORN and now we see he did and not just as their lawyer. It is a pattern and it goes to character. I get tired of Kool Aid drinkers saying that Obama was never a Muslim as if because he said it, it is true. He was and if he had admitted it there would be fewer questions about his character.

Once again, character is at issue with regard to Ayers (as well as judgment). First he associates with this guy who bombed buildings, and he deals with Rezko for his house (and who knows what else) and he hangs with Wright and Pfleger and all the other misfits. You can tell a lot about someone by the company he keeps. The left is quick to make the guilt by association with McCain to Bush or Bush to the Saudi family or Cheney and Big Oil but ask questions about Obama’s lack of judgment on who he associated with and you receive veiled insults from people who only believe they are entitled to an opinion.

As for Clinton, remember he lied under oath and that is what they got him for. He could have ended all of that had he (actually Hillary) not stonewalled and screwed around. If you keep blocking an investigator he will keep digging deeper. Perjury is a crime, well only when Libby does it. When Clinton did it the left, who demanded Libby’s head, excused it.

If Obama is such a poor candidate, why mourn his questionable (you say) citizenship? Why is it relevant? Much keening over Ayers’ “getting off on a technicality”, yet aren’t you attacking Obama over a technicality? No hassle on McCain’s birth in the Canal Zone; a hundred Democrats on record as asserting that they’d drop any objection to Schwarzenegger’s foreign birth, if he were to run…but not Dog. Foreign born, better off dead. Never mind that the Constitutional disqualification of a candidate for high office because of his foreign birth is an archaism designed expressly to annoy Alexander Hamilton, who died a while back. It’s a textbook example of a technicality. Who cares that ample clear and unequivocal multiply confirmed evidence for a Hawaii birth certificate, and only drooling wingnuts disagree? (and Jerome Corsi, who doesn’t qualify for drooling wingnut due to insufficient intelligence and subpar moral fiber). Who cares. Get him. He’s a furriner.

And why pursue Obama on the utterly bogus Muslim charge (PS–I know your answer on both counts–but bear with me–I’m having fun.) No religious test for office–why assert a religious test? Could it be that you are bigoted against Muslims? Could it be that the vote-against-my-own-interests-and-call-it-Patriotism crowd are more motivated by fearful ignorance than cool rational issues-thinking? No!

Crap–I went to a catholic school for first grade. Some time in the future, after my legislative career takes off, I’ll be painted with the Jesus brush. Doomed, and it’s so unfair!

Any high school senior knows, by the way, that the Muslim or Foreign-birth argument is a classic political fallacy. For the slower canines, a lesson: attack someone on a fact, then argue that it isn’t the technical detail–in this case, foreign birth or association with the forbidden Islam–but the candidate’s honesty in dealing straight with the American people. A classic perjury trap, like the masturbatory fantasy that took a jesus-freak special prosecutor from an Arkansas land-deal all the way to a gynecological cigar. Oh no–it’s beneath our dignity to attack Obama for technicalities…but if he’d only been honest about them!

And I love the dimly dangerous “not a coincidence!” Questionable associations! Innocence by association was possible, but no! He chose Terrorists! Sought them out–philanthropist neighbor terrorists, who had infiltrated conservative do-good education organizations, laid low for forty years, a mole just biding his time until he could read his ugly head and…do what? The Ayers guilt-by-association charge is a loser, as are they who flack it.

Gad, I’d better be careful. I may be associating with terrorists! Forty years ago, when I in catholic school, I hung out with a guy who…there goes my career.

Lies, lies, lies.

Ice

I am glad you brought up the lynching and cut testicles. All acts of the Democrats who are the racist party and who developed Jim Crow laws. The history of that party is replete with atrocity after atrocity while Republicans were trying to pass civil rights legislation.

I don’t see a connection between North and Liddy to Ayers. Ayers attacked this country. I don’t care who says he did not do it, he said he did and he said they did not bomb enough.

Anyone who reads what I write here knows I have long advocated for us to vote them ALL out of office regardless of party. I am not happy with any of them and the bailout was the final straw. Ron Paul was correct all along. I have had my problems with Bush but I think he is better than the choices we had at the time.

The choices we have now are not great. 300 million people here and these 2 are the best we can do? But I agree with some of McCain’s policies and none of Obama’s.

If elected, Obama will be my president because I am an American. That means I get to applaud him when he does good and I get to go after him (read that as in the non threatening way) and take him to task.

As for the rumors. You see Obama WAS a Muslim. His denial is the problem. Obama might have been born in Kenya because there are conflicting stories and no records to prove otherwise. Obama’s mother gave up his American citizenship when she moved him to Indonesia and he was registered as Indonesian (and Muslim).

Obama could be forgiven for his association with Ayers if that was the only bad choice. He could say it was not the Ayers he knew and move on but he has had so many questionable associations that one has to get to the point where one realizes that this is not a coincidence.

Not sure where the race card comes from. I explicitly omitted Palin’s antisemitism-by-association because it’s obviously outside of the intent of her references in the acceptance speech. I accuse McCain and Palin and especially their surrogates of inciting violence by calling Obama a terrorist and a communist, and encouraging falsehoods about him–he’s foreign-born, for example, or a Muslim. Furthermore the violence is visible at the rallies, so is it unincited?–I saw firsthand a woman refer to Obama as a terrorist and an “arab” recently, received enthusiastically by the crowd and uncritically by the candidate (though he did refer to Obama positively in the next breath). The next day I attended a calm and positive Obama rally. Nobody called McCain anything but old, though I did hear one person say that Palin had “a nice rack.” That one went uncorrected.

But if it’s racism you want, the cowardly and ugly use of Raines in the Fannie Mae ad is good enough for me. I suppose you wouldn’t call the Willie Horton ad racist. And all the lynching, that was just good fun, and those boys was communists anyhow and deserved to burn alive with their testicles in their mouths. See how we liberals do that? Jump from one related thing to the next…it’s obvious to any right-thinking Murican that there’s no relationship between those things. Just ask Strom or George or Orville. No relation at all, whatsoever. Nope. We have a clear conscience.

Actually I’d take you at your word on supporting the next president–and probably agree that a few bright lights on the left have played the “not my president” card as well. But that card was invented by Clinton-haters (well, Truman-haters first, more specifically the John Birch Society, who were promptly chastised for it by none other than Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy, but by then Eisenhower was in so it was moot). Do you repudiate that practice? Sounds to me like you do. See? We’re all just getting along.

I’m also gladdened to see you accept that Liddy’s “paid his price in jail”–that exonerates a lot of your usual-suspect villains on the left, too, as well as a couple hundred thousand voters. No need to exonerate Ayers, who though he admitted “setting bombs” was never convicted of anything more than unruly protesting and bad grooming. Fact is my Hyde Park sources say Ayers is a poseur who never really did much Weathermanning–mainly strutting around and making it with the notoriously easy Weatherwomen. And of course he lost his nerve when his more courageous bomb-buddies cut the blue wire and turned themselves into a fine red mist. Definitely more heroic to fire nearly 70 rounds from M1′s at a bunch of hippies in Ohio. No terror there. Or to destroy a village to save it. It requires complex logical contortions to perceive North and Liddy as noble and Ayers as some sort of awful terrorist; why not condemn them all? Obama has.

By the way, Professor Ayers probably did more to improve Chicago education than the entire Bush administration Department of Education. (by the way, you should read up on the new gay high school in Chicago. I’d expect some lovely frothy screeching on that one.)

But suppose I concede Liddy–what’s your response to the coterie of other McCain/Palin “terrorist buddies?” You got some talking points of your own, there? More important–is one terrorist enough to impeach a candidate’s integrity? Or does it take two, or five? What’s the cutoff? Because I can see you one Ayers and raise you a bunch of Nicaraguan Contras, torturing children and raping nuns on the American dollar (even recently, McCain wrote a check.) And let’s not forget that North was selling weapons to Iran while they held American hostages–in order to finance the Contras’ terror under the table.

No, the only clear difference here is that some of the terrorists are commies and some are not. On that I suppose we must disagree, though recent rather commie behavior on the part of the GW Bush executive and the congress–not to mention both candidates–muddies the waters that were so clear before.

Always a pleasure

Yours in Bokonon,

Ice9

The only people who say McCain/Palin are inciting violence are the idiots who see racism in everything. I could play that game. You stated “That’s a clarion call to your ilk, doggy-style. Your people revel in …”

Your ilk, your people? How racist of you. These are code words for white people and you are a racist.

You see, anyone can find something in nothing. I knew what you meant but then again, I am brighter than the average Obama supporter.

They are not inciting violence. Inciting violence is when you tell people to get in their face.

Obama is not the president yet. I will respect his office if he gets there but I am free to do as you and your ilk have done to Bush. I can criticize him and call him names and say what I want because you see, I can be like you all and claim he is not my president.

BTW, I never said you should blindly follow President Bush. I have had many problems with things he has done and have expressed them. But I have agreed with some of the things he has done. I expect people to express their differences but it would help if they actually expressed a cogent thought rather than spewing DNC talking points or regurgitating the Daily Kos.

How do I know Obama will make a bad president? I have seen his kind before.

It might be hard to notice at first because the media, like they have done all along, will cover for him. But it will show. Socialism and Communism have a way of showing themselves like when they say; We want to redistribute your money so everybody gets some.

As to the dildonics on sign vandalism, note that there is a big difference between vandalizing signs–plenty of people have done that, on both sides of the argument–and inciting violence against a candidate from the top of the ticket. Even in your slavering state of institution-quality insanity, you must see that McCain and Palin are inciting violence–why else would McCain try to back it off?

In your dimness, are you aware that Palin quoted in her acceptance speech, without attribution, a man who called for the assassination of Bobby Kennedy (by headshot) in the pages of major newspapers? A man who regretted an assassin’s decision to spare FDR and kill another man on the same stage? That’s a clarion call to your ilk, doggy-style. Your people revel in obscure conspiratorial code-phrasing, and imagine Sarah Palin, of all people–an incompetent small-town politician–as the savior of this Christian Nation.

And McCain pals around with Gordo Liddy, famous candle-hand, he of the mafia hit and the noble silence to protect Ehrlichman and Nixon, for god’s sake. Liddy who espoused, with his typical tough-guy grit, proper techniques for knocking down ATF agents. I see you forgot to mention that. Oh, he’s–and you’re–loyal, very. What patriots you are.

Malkin, typically, elides the difference between the misdemeanors of the incited and the high crime of incitement. For her, one more mark of the intentional distortion (as opposed to your own distortions, which are just the outgrowths of a limited mind.) When you see copious proofs of a simple point, such as Malkin’s long lineup of deranged and terroristic democrats, you can be sure that she’s trying to divert attention from the true issue. Polls show that the people aren’t buying it, thank jebus, but you are, which is at least consistent in the one thing–and entertaining.

Only problem with her post (yours much less sophisticated, but still completely illogical too) is that it’s a complete turnaround from your “rhetoric” during the Bush Administration, soon to be late and unlamented. Do we support the president because of the inherent dignity of his office, or not? You and your ilk have demanded for eight years that we give the president the benefit of the doubt, repudiate our constitutional rights to speak and criticize, just because he’s the Prezdent. Do you follow your own logic? If you don’t, well, yet another confirmation that you are a dishonest person, and not a patriot by any stretch. By the way, how do you know Obama will not make a good president? Aren’t you being a tad hasty in your evaluation?

kay pero, a true SOB–the Dog.

ice

For the record, it does not mean, “Is Mr. Obama an Arab Terrorist?” You see, that’s just plain racial politics and we can’t have that. No, not even if true. Another unacceptable example is, “Mr. Obama has associated himself with anarchists and domestic terrorists for the past 20 years.” You see, the truth is no defense in such matters.

I’m glad I could explain this to you, Big Dog. Let me know if you need further consulting services. Also, please remit $10.00 for this session.

Obama is evil and I don’t understand how people cannot see this after what America suffered on 9/11. If you put him in office, you are saying that what the terrorists did was okay. You will suffer with socialistic medicine (ask the people in Canada). Aborted babies who survive will be thrown down to suffer and die. He has lied so much that he doesn’t know what the truth is anymore. The democrats are laughing at how much they have gotten away with and think the people don’t know it. Yes, it’s time for a change. The democratic congress is killing America. Please think and pray before you vote.

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/entry.asp?entry_id=48874