Has Anyone Heard This?

[danielh41]

What I can't understand is how someone can blindly follow an amoral, deceitful candidate who hangs out with terrorists, hate-mongering "preachers," vote fraud organizations, and slumlords. Aren't you worried about the future of the Democratic Party? If Obama is elected and his presidency is only one quarter as bad as I think it will be, it will ensure that no Democrat gets elected to the Presidency for the next 20 years (although I personally think that would be a good thing). Using that reasoning, SSS is a much stronger Democrat than any of these people just automatically defending all of Obama's skeletons. You know, if solid evidence was released showing Obama to have molested and murdered a child, I'm sure most of his supporters would just be coming up with some other asinine defense for his actions.

No, I'm not worried about the future of the Democratic party. If Obama really had molested and murdered a child, he'd have been thrown under the bus long ago, just as happened to Wright when he fell in love with the national spotlight.

A Republican Presidency for the past eight years has been so bad and harmed so many people, and some of my friends have been deeply harmed with regard to their retirement savings, which is nothing compared to families which have lost sons and daughters chasing after a lie, that I hope no Republian gets elected to the Presidency for the next 20 years.

I believe that John McCain is closer to "amoral" than Barack Obama:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic ... 30,00.html
Worse than the lies have been the smears. McCain ran a television ad claiming that Obama favored "comprehensive" sex education for kindergartners. (Obama favored a bill that would have warned kindergartners about sexual predators and improper touching.) The accusation that Obama was referring to Sarah Palin when he said McCain's effort to remarket his economic policies was putting "lipstick on a pig" was another clearly misleading attack — an obnoxious attempt to divert attention from Palin's lack of fitness for the job and the recklessness with which McCain chose her. McCain's assault on the "élite media" for spreading rumors about Palin's personal life — actually, the culprits were a few bloggers and the tabloid press — was more of the same. And that gets us close to the real problem here. The McCain camp has decided that its candidate can't win honorably, on the issues, so it has resorted to transparent and phony diversions.

Nothing new here -- Rove did the same thing. And voters bought it. And we have been harmed.

Perhaps you need to look up the definition of amoral. Obama is the person who spoke out against a bill that would have mandated care for infants who survived abortions merely because he thought it would undermine Roe v. Wade. That he was bascially condoning infanticide to do this didn't matter to him.

I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 because he was the best candidate on each ballot. Has he been a great president? No. But I do believe that he has done a better job than either Gore or Kerry would have done. Of course, this is just a matter of my opinion since no one will ever know. One thing I will say about George W. Bush is this: there has not been a terrorist attack on our soil since 9-11. That is saying a lot since I do remember how incredibly vulnerable I and many others felt in the months after 9-11.

And I will add one more thing: This economic situation didn't grow into a crisis until 1) the Democrats took control of Congress and 2) President Bush compromised the ideals of conservatism (either by trying to appear bipartisan or in the interest of "compassionate conservatism" whatever that was supposed to mean).

I do have concerns about McCain as President, but the idea of an Obama presidency is detestable to me. Yes, I do think that four years of Obama would so damage the Democratic party that Democrats would be completely shut out of the White House for the next two decades. But I love my country, and I would rather not put it through the pain of the next four years just for that...

[SportsFan68]

Perhaps you need to look up the definition of amoral.
. . .

I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 because he was the best candidate on each ballot. Has he been a great president? No. But I do believe that he has done a better job than either Gore or Kerry would have done. Of course, this is just a matter of my opinion since no one will ever know. One thing I will say about George W. Bush is this: there has not been a terrorist attack on our soil since 9-11. That is saying a lot since I do remember how incredibly vulnerable I and many others felt in the months after 9-11.

And I will add one more thing: This economic situation didn't grow into a crisis until 1) the Democrats took control of Congress and 2) President Bush compromised the ideals of conservatism (either by trying to appear bipartisan or in the interest of "compassionate conservatism" whatever that was supposed to mean).

I do have concerns about McCain as President, but the idea of an Obama presidency is detestable to me. Yes, I do think that four years of Obama would so damage the Democratic party that Democrats would be completely shut out of the White House for the next two decades. But I love my country, and I would rather not put it through the pain of the next four years just for that...

OK, I looked up amoral: 1 a: being neither moral nor immoral ; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply <science as such is completely amoral — W. S. Thompson> b: lacking moral sensibility <infants are amoral>
2: being outside or beyond the moral order or a particular code of morals <amoral customs>

I think both of us are using it wrong. I vote that we drop that one. OK, I'm dropping it.

Another thing I'll say about George W. Bush -- there was not a terrorist attack on our soil before 9-11, and I believe there wouldn't have been one then if Gore had been President. I believe that the terrorists knew that they could count on all those fears and feelings of vulnerability with Bush at the helm.

I too love my country and believe that Obama will be the best possible President for the next four years, and who knows, maybe eight.

[danielh41]

OK, I looked up amoral: 1 a: being neither moral nor immoral ; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply <science as such is completely amoral — W. S. Thompson> b: lacking moral sensibility <infants are amoral>
2: being outside or beyond the moral order or a particular code of morals <amoral customs>

I think both of us are using it wrong. I vote that we drop that one. OK, I'm dropping it.

Another thing I'll say about George W. Bush -- there was not a terrorist attack on our soil before 9-11, and I believe there wouldn't have been one then if Gore had been President. I believe that the terrorists knew that they could count on all those fears and feelings of vulnerability with Bush at the helm.

I too love my country and believe that Obama will be the best possible President for the next four years, and who knows, maybe eight.

Yes, I need to quit referring to Obama as amoral and just call him immoral.

You're entitled to your belief that 9-11 wouldn't have happened under a Gore presidency. But Clinton spent 8 years cutting our defense and intelligence capabilities, so I doubt that.

I believe that the person who would make the best possible President for the next four years is running as an independant and therefore has no shot at winning. My hope is that McCain wins and keeps to a conservative agenda.

[silvercamaro]

there was not a terrorist attack on our soil before 9-11

This is not accurate. Foreign terrorists attacked the World Trade Center with a car bomb in 1993.

We will never know if there was foreign involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing, because President William J. Clinton used his executive powers to shut down the FBI investigation of that very real possibility.

[Bob Juch]

One thing I will say about George W. Bush is this: there has not been a terrorist attack on our soil since 9-11. That is saying a lot since I do remember how incredibly vulnerable I and many others felt in the months after 9-11.

There hasn't been an elephant stampede either.

[silverscreenselect]

I believe that the person who would make the best possible President for the next four years is running as an independant and therefore has no shot at winning. My hope is that McCain wins and keeps to a conservative agenda.

I would never have pegged you for a Ralph Nader supporter.

[danielh41]

I believe that the person who would make the best possible President for the next four years is running as an independant and therefore has no shot at winning. My hope is that McCain wins and keeps to a conservative agenda.

I would never have pegged you for a Ralph Nader supporter.

Haha! That's funny. No, it's not Ralph. Although he would be a better alternative than Obama...

[WheresFanny]

No, but has anyone heard this?

Spoiler

A rabbi, a priest and a parakeet walk into a bar.....

[SportsFan68]

This is not accurate. Foreign terrorists attacked the World Trade Center with a car bomb in 1993.

SC is right again, as usual as always.

As the Times says, I regret the error.