McCain response continues to be Teh Suck
by Kagro X
Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 06:54:39 AM PDT

The McCain Dungeons & Dragons gang fails its saving throw:

Group to spend $2.8 million on anti-Obama ad

By JIM KUHNHENN – 32 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — A conservative nonprofit group with a past link to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign wants to spend $2.8 million on an ad questioning Democrat Barack Obama's relationship to a founder of the 1960s radical group Weather Underground.

The ad, which is expected to begin airing Thursday in Michigan and Friday in Ohio, focuses on William Ayers, whose Weatherman organization took credit for a series of bombings, including nonfatal explosions at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol four decades ago.

The ad was supposed to be the response to McCain getting his *** whipped over weaseling out of answering questions about his four seven eight twelve houses by pretending not to know how many he had. (A-duh. That's so much less elitist!)

But, uh... didn't work.

Organizers sought to air the ad on Fox News Channel, but a Fox spokesman said the network declined to run it.

Too sleazy for Fox. Hilarious!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/21/193943/988

Presidential candidates will be judged by their associations. Its always been that way. Rightly so. Obama has some creepy friends, Rev Wright, a racist and America hater, for example. The church that invites guys like Farakan to speak is a good example of just why people are wary of Obama. Then to find out that he is pals with Ayers is quite telling. Another America hater. Convicted terrorist. Take all that and add the fact that he is an apologist to the rest of the world for percieved wrong treatment by America and what do you get? NOT elected. He is toast. Its over. Saddleback showed the contrast. One patriot and one mumbling salesman. say goodnight Gracie.

Rezko?


Who cares how many houses McCain does (or doesn't own)?

of course I'll finish your 'facts'

"Instead of invoking Paris, Britney and obscure sixties radicals, Sen. McCain should take the day off at one of his seven homes to consider whether his support for outsourcing, tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas and continued spending of $10 billion a month in Iraq is really putting 'country first,'" Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

Obama has distanced himself from the radical activity of the Weather Underground. In an interview with "Fox News Sunday" in April, Obama said he "deplored" Ayers' actions in the 1960s.

"Mr. Ayers is a 60-plus-year-old individual who lives in my neighborhood, who did something that I deplore 40 years ago when I was 6 or 7 years old," Obama said then. "By the time I met him, he is a professor of education at the University of Illinois. We served on a board together that had Republicans, bankers, lawyers, focused on education."

This week, the University of Illinois refused to release records relating to Obama's service on the Chicago Annenberg Exchange. The university said the donor of the records that document the charity's work has not yet turned over ownership rights to the material.

The university said it is "aggressively pursuing" an agreement with the donor and will open the collection to the public as soon as one is finalized.

Obama's campaign has said the senator does not have control over these records.

The ad is the first for the American Issues Project. As a nonprofit organization, the group can raise unlimited amounts of contributions, unlike political action committees that are governed by campaign finance laws.

Pinkston, the group's spokesman, said it will identify contributions used to pay for the ad.

McCain in the past has criticized independent groups, even those that support him, that air negative campaign ads.

In a statement, Failor, who is executive vice president of Iowans for Tax Relief, said: "When the American public fully understands the close, continuing relationship between their potential president and a remorseless domestic terrorist, we believe it will send a chill down their spines."

Ayers was a fugitive for years with his wife, fellow radical Bernadine Dohrn. But after surrendering in 1980, the charges against Ayers were dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gfb_aSC...9zAvZwD92MVCQO0

I hate slime ads that have none or distorted facts. It seems like just a waste and it preys on stupidity.

The Cult of Obama does. Anything to get peoples minds off Obama's great energy plan. The tire gauge.

McCain and cons call Obama an elitist yet he can't remember how many homes he owns while so many are being booted out of theirs .

Obama obviously has more to his energy plan . But yet a tire gauge is smart. we lose alot of fuel just because of the pressure in our tires. too bad McCain wasn't smart enough to think of it. that something so simple as air pressure can save gas instead of the stupid idea of drilling that we won't see results from for say 10 years and will only dent the cost by about a quarter a gallon IF that at that point in time.

sounds like sour grapes to me. so sad.

People criticizing Obama for even being in the same room as William Ayers act as if all Ayers does when he's not sleeping, eating, or showering is broadcast Weatherman-style propaganda from some kind of hidden speaker phone installed in his mouth. I mean, come on - the guy surrendered nearly 30 years ago, and even if he is unrepentant, he's never really made much out of what he's done. Certainly there's no indication that Obama ever heard him speaking on the Weatherman crimes.

People who view McCain as one of the "average Americans" might also care. Ironic that you talk about getting people's minds off something Obama said: might this ridiculous link of Obama to a former terrorist be an attempt to distract people from the stupid things McCain has said?

As opposed to the brilliant McCain plan to drill our way into further oil dependency?

Concrete footings laid for the future, versus pie-in-the-sky platitudes.

Concrete footings allowing us to pass a problem we created onto our kids and grandkids because we still will have enough gas to drive our SUV's for the rest of our lives.

And even better-- the ultra-rich in America will stay ultra-rich. Now that's what I call rock solid stability. No changes in financial status, no sacrifices from us. Seems like a no-brainer doesn't it?

If you believe oil/petroleum/gasoline/diesel will be out of the American consumer picture anywhere in the next generation or two, you're deluding yourself.

The ultra-rich pay a right substantial amount of taxes in America.

Will you be filling your family's vehicle with hydrogen in ten years? (Pie-in-sky platitudes just don't cut it, when there's a gas fill spout on your vehicle, in ten year's time.)

It's our responsibility to begin to deal with it. We send kids onto the battlefield to "preserve freedom" but we ourselves are so spoiled we can't tighten our belts and start finding other energy sources.

How are you going to "deal with it," in ten years time?

Will a tire pressure gauge handle your family's needs, or fancy talk about solar, hydrogen, wind energy? No, they won't.

As much as some are loathe to admit, increased domestic petroleum is needed in the extreme. It's either that or continue to fund nations and peoples that desperately hate America.

Look, I appreciate that you want to wean our country from the teat of foreign petroleum, so do I. But in a practical sense, do you really believe that's going to happen? Obama doesn't/won't endorse nuclear energy and has been brow-beaten enough (by practicality?) to sheepishly admit increased domestic petroleum production is necessary.

Wrap yourself in the emperor's clothing of Pelosi's claptrap spoutings, but it's evident to any logical person we need to increase domestic petroleum production.

One candidate has fully embraced the current and near-future energy needs of this nation. The other has preached platitudes that sound really good. One will fill the family vehicle's fuel tank, come ten year's time. The other? If wishes were horses, my friends................beggars would ride.

Relax-- not using petrolium doesn't necessarily mean the country's churchy values will go down the toilet. Our marriages won't be de-sanctified by all those degenerate gay people.




How are we going to deal with it in tens years? Poorly. It's going to be a real drag. There's no doubt about it. But sooner or later we need to deal with it. So why not now?

I don't go to church. From where the hell did this come?

Well, excuse me if my comment was misdirected. I've gotten the feeling that a lot of people equate alternative energy with "alternative values". Recently it's suddenly become evident to the Evangelicals that when your holy book starts out with "God created the heavens and the earth" pollution is your enemy. For decades people have been buying the logic that not supporting the big oil companies is equivalent so supporting abortion, free love, refusal to work for your living, a commie government taking your guns away and then stripping you of your property, etc, etc.

McCain endorsed alternative energy research too. I wonder if the giant donation the oil companies gave his campaign has changed his scientific viewpoint.

A plan that isn't even useful for 10 years certainly counts as looking to the future, you're right. But that concrete footing is going to look more like quicksand when in 11 years we need yet another plan. But hey, conservation is for suckers and tree-hugging commies, right? Forget giving people tips for how to save some money on gas while simultaneously working on alternative energy and other solutions that will (hopefully) help solve the problem, what we need is an out of touch guy with seven houses who only wants to delay the problem (and use it as a "solution") until he's out of politics.

Teej, you've expressed what I started out to say much better than me.

It's our **** and we need to clean it up, not pass the buck.

Which is better a plan that pays you 1000 dollars to cope with the increase of gas prices. Causing of course prices across the board to go up because someone has to pay for that money. Or put the usa even further into debt.


Or a plan that will take place for ten years but may at least keep prices from going up for a while.

Please, sir. You wrong me, and make yourself out to be a fool if you equate me, or all who believe likewise, as "Evangelicals."

Let's poke the obvious holes in your response, shall we?

>>>A plan that isn't even useful for 10 years certainly counts as looking to the future, you're right. But that concrete footing is going to look more like quicksand when in 11 years we need yet another plan.

The plan, to be useful, needs implemented yesterday. Evidently it's not obvious to you America (we) need oil today, tomorrow, and well into the future. It's not a need that will be easily supplanted. The computer you're posting from is composed of what? Petroleum. Look around the very room you're in, right now. How many things are manufactured from petroleum? Dozens, if not hundreds of the products within the room you're in, right now, are petroleum-based.

Wish away, as much as you wish, right along with BHO, for alternative energies to magically occur, overnight. It's not going to happen, is it? It should be obvious (maybe it's not, I can't speak for your comprehension), but the US will require petroleum for many, many generations.

>>>But hey, conservation is for suckers and tree-hugging commies, right? Forget giving people tips for how to save some money on gas while simultaneously working on alternative energy and other solutions that will (hopefully) help solve the problem, what we need is an out of touch guy with seven houses who only wants to delay the problem (and use it as a "solution") until he's out of politics.

Conservation is something we're all economically compelled to perform. What a great idea! I don't need some platitude-spouting wet-behind-the-ears 1 1/2 term Senator preaching it to me. And you make it sound as if Obama is the only one advocating alternate energy sources/technology. Duh! We're all, young/old/concerned/oblivious ready/willing/able to endorse and support alternative energy. Leftist liberals haven't cornered the market on that, for pete's sake.

Again, the "out of touch" guy advocates building large numbers of new nuclear plants, a non-polluting source of desperately needed electricity. BHO, not so much, even after his trip to France. Seven houses? Maybe your saviour should consider sending $25/month to his newly discovered brother, and double his annual income.

I saw the ad on Fox News...

With the results of increased funding and infrastructure as established by the Democratic candidate over that time period. You know, as opposed to thinking that by drilling the minuscule valuable oil reserves left in the United States (which has had a declining domestic oil production for north of 30 years to this point), we can somehow magically solve our problems.



Will a pathetic amount of gasoline eaten up merely by the growth in gasoline consumption over the next four-to-six years do so? No.



It's also worthless as a solution, but I don't expect you to realize that; we've pointed out to you, over and over, that it's nearly worthless in increasing the availability of oil and decreasing the price of it, yet it doesn't sink in. You keep mindlessly repeating the talking point like a good little Republitard.



Oh, please. Obama was Exelon's b**** when he was in the Illinois Legislature, and when called upon it in a debate, admitted that it would be an option on the table. At the very least, he's going to give it a look, regardless of what the NIMBY idiots think or want.



Not if it doesn't amount to anything. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to appreciate that - you repeated the mindless Republitard Talking Point attack on Nancy Pelosi.


One candidate (McCain) has latched on to a false solution and propagated it as his own (a flip-flop, so to speak), while the other candidate has been mostly honest in pointing out that this is a stupid idea, only slightly compromising when the "moron" factor got too intense in the public arena about it.

No you can't, but you certainly try to. I, and as far as I'm aware no one else, am not arguing that we need to completely eliminate oil from ever being used again. That's an assertion you've made just because I questioned the usefulness of offshore drilling and support a bigger push for alternative energy as a better long-term solution. "Alternative energy" does not equate the complete absence of oil.

By the way, I could call McCain your savior every time you agree with him too, but I prefer not to resort to childish and sneaky argument techniques. But nice reference to McCain's "the one" ad.

On the topic of energy, why does Obama oppose nuclear energy? It seems like the best option to me...

I guess so long as we're talking about it, from what I understand he doesn't. He wants to wait for better planning in regards to safety and disposal of waste. In other words, he's not avidly against it but he would prefer persuing other possible energy sources. McCain's push for nuclear is actually one of the few things I'm tentatively in agreement with.

we have the safety and the waste problem handled.



We have found that if you leave enough empty room in the rods and they over heat they will shut themselves down. The waste can be recycled and thus become plain old dirt.


But Carter outlawed the use of recycled nuke material.

Yes. I understand Obama's concern but when we already have an alternative energy source to replace oil, it removes the urgency to look for others. It seems more cost effective to convert to nuclear energy while spending the money he wishes to spend on alternative energy research, to search for ways to deal with the waste. We'll immediately have cleaner energy, rather than an indefinite number of years down the road and in addition, we may well have perfected nuclear energy by the time we are discovering other sources of energy.



Source?

Well, like I said this is an issue I'm not 100% in agreement with. That's his reasoning, not mine.

So you would agree with my line of thinking then?

ten years ago from PBS doing an interview of the nuke research facility in Idaho. The one Clinton shut down to save welfare. They had three goals, they meet two of them the safety and the waste. The third was make sure nuke material used for energy couldn't be used for a nuke bomb. I learned later that Carter had outlawed the recycling of nuke material.

A source is a link to a reputable site reporting the facts you claim to be true.

sorry I don't have a source. Not sure how to look it up.


But this one has a lot on the nuke plants.


http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.htm#wastes

He's waffled on it, but I think it's fair to say that Obama will at least give nuclear a fair shake. He took in quite a bit of campaign funding from Exelon (a nuclear power corporation in Illinois) when he was in the state legislature.

Yeah, I don't really have much against looking into it more and making sure everything is right, especially when some people still have fears regarding events like Three Mile Island. And in the grand scheme of things I'd much rather have Obama as president in regards to environmentalism than McCain, regardless of their views on nuclear energy.