At the risk of having us sound like two 10 year olds arguing, I never said the above things. So you are arguing with yourself here.

AGG

The Lorax,

We've already run the gamut of Obama's relationship with Ayers. McCain has equally unnerving relationships of his own including Charles Keating and G. Gordon Liddy.

It's a laughable claim that Obama "palls around with terrorists" to distract voters from the fact that Obama is the better candidate on the issues.

I hardly think, the most decorated General in modern times, Colin Powell, would support a candidate he believed in any way shape or from supported or believed in terrorism of any kind. This is a deliberate smear of Obama's character that has blown up in his face of the McCain campaign and rightfully so.

Want2Stay

She did say "on both sides", which I think is the correct assessment. And it goes to contradict the earlier whining on this thread about the "typical DEMOCRAT tactics" using an altered picture of Palin's kid. The Republicans are not squeaky clean here.

AGG

Yeah, and you've said the same thing before. So if you're going to question my veracity, I guess I can question yours, as to whether you'd actually admit receiving them.

Whatever, it still doesn't address the fact that while certain whites jump all over themselves to deny a shred of racism or bigotry but are quick to jump all over Obama and his camp for being just so, there most certainly are people of some race out there starting and sending out this crap.

Like I said, I've yet to get even one nasty email about McCain. I've yet to get any kind of information that could even be vaguely described as smear tactics from Democratic friends.

So which are the better friends?

You're a democrat who has friends who send you nasty e-mails.

I'm a conservative who has friends who don't send me nasty e-mails.

Who picks better quality people as friends?

Vicki Iseman is a woman that Mr. John McCain recently had an affair with and she looks an awful lot like his current wife.

So he still has no integrity. He is 72 years old. The man can barley walk and he looks like the tin man before he found Ihis can of oil. Yet that doesn't stop him from cheating.

I don't like Obama's stance on abortions. I dis-test women that get them for selfish reasons. I know some who have and I have lost friends because of how I feel about it. His economic plan may not be as sound as it should be but I think it is a lot better than McCain's the man didn't even have one or at least didn't mention one until the last debate.

I think Obama's plan regarding education blows. How ever most changes that are made have to go to the senate before or if/ it is changed.

I think the only the McCain is experienced in is matters of war. For him and Palin to say that they don't think their opponent is ready to be president they only way they would know this is because they themselves are not ready to be in office. None of them has experience being President of the US. So how can they claim experience?

As far as the experience McCain claims it entails dirty dealings. Search on the Keating 5. I don't think that is the kind of experience we need in the white house. I would like to think that he has learned the error of his ways, but the fact that he is still engaging in affairs is proof other wise.

I like the fact the Obama is looking into saving our natural resources. Once they are all used up then what?

As far as the people that Obama associate with, when you say associate with what exactly does that mean? We all are associating with each other yet we all have very different points of views. If one of you were into hurting others I would not agree with that. We can see not only does McCain know people that have shady pasts but he himself has engaged in some of those dirty dealings. Palin maybe an attractive, she may be charismatic, she may be a Maverick. However she has shown that she will use her power for her own selfish reasons as well. That is why she is on trail for firing her ex-brother in law.

Obama may not have the experience but he has Biden who is just as knowledgeable as McCain.

Like I said they both have things I dislike about their campiagns and plan for the country. So I am leaning for Obama because he seems like the lesser of two evils. If you have anything to add for McCain except his war experience I am all ready to hear it. I don't know how true this is but someone called in to a talk radio show and said the McCain's dad had his army record sealed because when he broke formation while doing an exercise he caused the death of 100 some odd people being reckless and his dad had him airlifted out to clear his name and sealed his record. It is instances like this that being a Maverick is not for the better.

Well, I would think that my Democrat friends are better quality.

Anyway, I am NOT a Democrat, thank you very much. As has been discussed, I favor the Republican way of thinking more than the Democrat. I'm just more interested in the environment than any current political issues because once it's gone it's gone, so I have to vote with whoever will preserve it. And it sure ain't you know who.

Hey Mrs W. I like delightful in GA. that has a nice ring to it. Thank you. I will cherish it always. Have you had a chance to visit GA? I think this is the best time of the year here. They have so many fallish things to do. We went to the Corn Maize this pass weekend. They are having a few fall festivals this weekend. We went to the fair. The are having lots of family things in the parks to. We have been having a great time. The whole family loves it here. I see why you are so fond of GA.

Neither Presidential candidate will help you pick better friends.

Take responsibility for YOUR choices, Cat.

BTW: There are plenty of ugly things being said by Obama supporters.

Another Republican, Ken Adelman, has endorsed Obama:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/20/ken_adelman_backing_obama.html

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2008/10/not-quite-colin.html

I went back and finished what I had to say in my previous post. I am reposting it.

Well now, DIG, it would seem that my earlier suggestion that you might be "in the tank" for Obama is true.

You take unsubstantiated smears from last February, reinvent them as "current," AND conclude that not only DID McCain have an affair (which no one claimed or tried to offer any proof of) but that he "is still engaging in affairs."

So much for your being "on the fence." So much for your haranguing me to post up "stuff" on McCain so you can "evaluate" it.

You cite unfounded rumor (started by the bastion of "even-handedness and non-biased journalism" - The New York Times) as "Fact" while glibly ignoring the FACTS of Obama's support for, and championing of, infanticide and not restrictions of any kind on the killing of MILLIONS of innocent babies.

And some people are "worried about" and "disturbed by" some email cartoons??? Give me a break.

By the way, one might think of Saturday Night Live, Jay Leno, David Letterman, etc., as "cartoons" of Sarah Palin and John McCain that come into our "inboxes" very frequently and much more than "4 times."

It would simply be "unbelievable" if it wasn't so sad that millions of innocent babies will continue to pay the price of the willingness of so many to "overlook" everything about Obama.

And now you resort to smear tactics worthy of Howard Dean and the Daily Kos.

Iseman and McCain both deny a relationship. What proof do you have of an affair?

Of course she's in the tank for Obama. Has there really been any doubt about that?

Speaking of being "in the tank" for Obama, that reminds me of an amusing anecdote. A while back, a conservative radio commentator became outraged at seeing Obama speaking in front of flags with a large "O" on a field of blue stars:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200810160022

Apparently the flag was that of the state of Ohio. It can be seen here:
http://www.sadlyno.com/wordpress/uploads/2008/10/obamaflag.jpg

being displayed by some soldiers in Iraq. This led one wag to comment that these soldiers are "obviously 'in the tank' for Obama, except there is no tank".

Clink. Clink. Slam. Sound of salt and pepper being returned to cupboard. Guess I'd better go rustle myself up some potatoes and eggs for breakfast. Getting tired of waiting for that danged hat!

What I fail to understand is the almost hysterical vitriol and fear that is so palpable (in certain quarters) when an Obama presidency is considered. If the voting public decides to elect the democratic nominee than he will be constrained by the same constitutional checks and balances that any contemporary President faces. Democracy in this country is not a static enterprise--new leaders occasionally rise to the forefront and the old guard is shaken up a bit. Without that tension, we would all suffer b/c it is through that process that new ideas are given a chance to succeed or fail. Instead of always fighting with one another, it's a shame we hardly ever take any time to appreciate the functional elements within our pluralistic society.

***EDIT***, perhaps you don't see it that way, but I do, and I think it was rather clear from what you posted (that I responded to earlier), that that is exactly what you meant. I had thought that my response would have been enough, but given your steadfast denials, perhaps it would be a good idea to see once again just what you DID say:


Then you "go further," and ascribe this notion of yours to BOTH the participants in the GQ forum and to Dr. Harley himself:

***EDIT***, there ARE some members of MB, who post on the GQ forum as well as many other forums, who DO think that ANY marriage between "affair partners" is "illegitimate." But you can't apply your previous statement to some "amalgous" GQ target. You directed your comment directtly to ME. I am also unaware of Dr. Harley ever having taken that stance, but if you have some proof (not allegations of the NY Times variety), I would be willing to look at it.

Regardless, your assertion that the "GQ forum" (as if it was controlled by or run by a group or a gang of people who think and say that such a marriage would be "illegitimate" is NOT true. Individual members, yes. The entire forum, no.

It would seem, at a minimum, that you might want to "rethink" this "position statement," perhaps even retract them.

This thread has strayed way off topic - I'm LOCKING it.