Are the Republican A2Kers getting desperate?

@mysteryman,

@dyslexia,

If thats the case, after you shear them I want the wool so Stacy can knit a baby blanket.

If you were attempting to be a smartass, I will be glad to post the exact time and date when I decided to stop watching the election.

I have specified that I can not support either candidate, and dont really care who wins.
IMHO, McCain is an idiot concerning domestic issues and Obama is a babe in the woods concerning foreign affairs.
I dont trust either one of them, and know that no matter which candidate wins, we all lose.

Now, do you want to answer the question I asked, or do you just want to continue to be a smartass?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Thanks.
The first I had heard about the tape was yesterday, so I didnt know what it was about.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

Mysteryman: I googled "LA Times Withholding Obama Tape." Many, many postings. Read through them and let us know if any of them seem to be credible (both in source and content). Thanks.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

I liked this take on that "controversy" (I edited out some awkward grammar in the first para):

Quote:

BACK TO THE SOURCE.

I'm making an effort not to be provoked into controversies started by disingenuous hacks, [so] I'm not going to say much about why the LA Times reported on Rashid Khalidi using their preferred medium of "text," rather than breaking faith with a source and handing the video cassette over to NetFlix. I will say, though, that this is standard operating procedure in the news business, which does not tend to release much in the way of primary documents.

An example: Almost every story you read is the product of dozens of interviews, most of which never show up in the content of the article, and almost none of which are transcribed and made public on the magazine's web site. This is true for, among others, The LA Times and The National Review. Many of those interviews are conducted on background, or off-the-record, and though the reporter has the full file of her source's comments, the reader never knows of the source's involvement in the story. In those cases, the reporter is honoring the source's request to remain completely hidden.

The National Review, which frequently uses anonymous sourcing, has zero credibility to demand that The LA Times release a video against the source's wishes. It is against not only The LA Times's expressed code of professional ethics, but also against The National Review's expressed code of professional ethics.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

MM said;

Quote:

or do you just want to continue to be a smartass?

MM I have been here ona2k basically since it began and I admit it took me about 2 years to realize that posting reasonable thoughts on political or religious topics was pissing in the wind. I then gave up all intentions of trying to remain rational on these threads and now rely solely on being a smartass or, if you will, a gadfly. If you should choose to post well reasoned (not "I heard" crap) then I would consider doing in kind. In the meantime I will rely on rational posts from such posters as GeorgeOB (he is every bit as biased as I am but always remains rational).

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama
The right is making a big deal about "the tape," but this article--that was all but ignored back when it was published in April--explains in more detail the issue behind "the tape".

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

I heard about the tape while sitting in a truckstop eating lunch.
I heard 2 other drivers talking about it, and wanted to know if anyone else had heard about it.

Sorry if you cant accept that, but thats your problem, not mine.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

I heard about the tape while sitting in a truckstop eating lunch.
I heard 2 other drivers talking about it, and wanted to know if anyone else had heard about it.

Sorry if you cant accept that, but thats your problem, not mine.

deal iwith other opinions or not, it makes no nevermind to me.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

From InfraBlues link:

"And both sides, on certain issues, have interpreted Obama's remarks as supporting their point of view."

Therein lies the problem, however does anyone doubt the reason why Palestinians and terrorist organizations support Obama. They see this as a huge opportunity to realize their dream of eliminating the state of Israel.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

They see this as a huge opportunity to realize their dream of eliminating the state of Israel.

Or at least they see this as a huge opportunity to get Israel to stop discriminating against and oppressing the Palestinians.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

It is no secret that the enemies of Israel will not rest until the Jews are pushed into the sea. Sorry, but reality is a stubborn thing to eliminate.

1 Reply

@okie,

Okie wrote:

It is no secret that the enemies of Israel will not rest until the Jews are pushed into the sea. Sorry, but reality is a stubborn thing to eliminate.

It is also no secret that Obama has never identified himself as an enemy of Israel, or called for the Israelis to be pushed into the sea.

Sorry, but reality is a stubborn thing to eliminate.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Okay, I guess we will just have to wait and see. Don't claim you weren't warned. I hope I am wrong, and lots of other people are wrong too.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

Okay, I guess we will just have to wait and see. Don't claim you weren't warned. I hope I am wrong, and lots of other people are wrong too.

More than two thirds of American jews support Obama. But they are probably anti-Israel. Or maybe you care about Israel's survival more than they do.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Blatham, I have long wondered why Israelis living here support Democrats, as Democrats are much less likely to support Israel, at least more recently. I don't have the answer for that one, all I can say is they might be sorry for supporting Obama if they care about Israel surviving. Thats my opinion.

1 Reply

Is Fred Barnes getting desperate? He sure as **** is getting crabby, to use Josh's appropriate word.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAvxuwl9bGo&eurl=http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Blatham, I have long wondered why Israelis living here support Democrats,

It's polling of American jews, not Israeli jews living here.

Quote:

as Democrats are much less likely to support Israel. I don't have the answer for that one

,
You do not know what you are talking about. Which just might account for why you can't figure this out.

0 Replies

Okie, you shouldn't make comments like that just because of your partisan prejudices, when you don't know what you're talking about, and you know you don't know what you are talking about.

Harry Truman recognized the state of Israel in 1948, and although that was very likely because he was in a tight presidential race with a Republican whom everyone expect to win, whatever his reasons, the Israeli relationship with the United States had begun. His successor, Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, put the brakes on Israeli aggression when he told them in 1956 in no uncertain terms that they had better get out of the Sinai, or lose all American military and monetary support. Over the last 60 years, it is impossible to characterize policies toward Israel on the basis of the party affiliation of the Presidents and the members of Congress.

1 Reply

Frank Luntz:

Quote:

"I cannot foresee a scenario that John McCain is elected the President of the United States."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7703000/7703725.stm

1 Reply

Are the Republican A2Kers getting desperate?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know