and his boot out of Obama's arse.

I think that is not the best move for Obama. It looks like he got bloodied, and now doesn't want to debate anymore.

Though, that debate WAS atrocious from every level. Now it seems that the "Do you believe in the American Flag" woman was a plant.

But I agree that there should be no more debates, the call shouldn't have come from Obama.

After that ABC turd, I don't blame him, but I don't think that's really the best way.

Though if there is another debate I hope his opening remarks make it perfectly clear that he is there to debate policy and matters of substance, not bullshiat talking points, and that he won't tolerate any mentions of sniper-fire, pastors, or people who donated 200 dollars to his campaign 8 years ago and did something illegal when he was 6 years old.

It's time for the garbage parade to come to an end.

coolbeans56: I think that is not the best move for Obama. It looks like he got bloodied, and now doesn't want to debate anymore.

Though, that debate WAS atrocious from every level. Now it seems that the "Do you believe in the American Flag" woman was a plant.

But I agree that there should be no more debates, the call shouldn't have come from Obama.

Seriously. They throw that chick up there, but then they have their person to question Hillary do the "sniper" thing? Why not have that same guy come up there and say "Hillary, you claim to be pro-gun ever since you began campaigning in PA. Yet, since you became a senator in New York you have obsessively put forward and passed anti-gun laws. How do you explain this?"

coolbeans56: Though, that debate WAS atrocious from every level.

I dont understand. If you really care about the tax plains of the candidates you can check their website. The "real" issues everyone is crying about not being discussed last night are fully covered by the candidates websites and press releases. Do you expect them to go into detail about environmental policies on live tv? Not going to happen. If they do talk about the "real" issues it will be nothing more than a sound bite! Pollution is bad! Green is good! Debates are there to find out what the candidates dont want you to learn. It's for them to slip up and tell you how they really feel and to show you how they react under pressure. By this time we all know where the candidates stand on Iraq and the economy (the two big ones) so why should they ask them about them again? Do you think that anyone of them is going to suddenly change their mind on either topic?

coolbeans56: I think that is not the best move for Obama. It looks like he got bloodied, and now doesn't want to debate anymore.

Though, that debate WAS atrocious from every level. Now it seems that the "Do you believe in the American Flag" woman was a plant.

But I agree that there should be no more debates, the call shouldn't have come from Obama.

I would agree for any other politician. But Obama has the ability to take his weaknesses and turn them into political points he can hammer on. He takes a divisive pastor, and turns it into a sincere plea for a racial discussion. He takes Bittergate and turns it into a defiant populist stance. And he takes this and turns it into a statement about how petty politics has become.

This might be a cynical move on his part, but if you can make the argument, you can win with it. And I think he can.

Agreed. Right move, but should have come from the debate organizers.

Though even then the rabid righties would cry "quitters!"

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I dont understand. If you really care about the tax plains of the candidates you can check their website. The "real" issues everyone is crying about not being discussed last night are fully covered by the candidates websites and press releases. Do you expect them to go into detail about environmental policies on live tv? Not going to happen. If they do talk about the "real" issues it will be nothing more than a sound bite! Pollution is bad! Green is good! Debates are there to find out what the candidates dont want you to learn. It's for them to slip up and tell you how they really feel and to show you how they react under pressure. By this time we all know where the candidates stand on Iraq and the economy (the two big ones) so why should they ask them about them again? Do you think that anyone of them is going to suddenly change their mind on either topic?

Well 20 of the 21 debates were about matters of substance. Heck, even the Kos debate managed to not be as biased as that one was, and that's freaking DailyKos!

And then one debate was dictated to the "moderators" (hey wonder what the root of that word is?) by a right wing radio host. Sorry, but I'm not buying that that's what a debate is supposed to be. Not everyone reads the candidate's website - the debate is a chance for people to find out about the candidates stances and policies as well as personalities. Not grill them on sniper fire or other right wing talking points.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: y this time we all know where the candidates stand on Iraq and the economy (the two big ones) so why should they ask them about them again? Do you think that anyone of them is going to suddenly change their mind on either topic?

It had been 6 weeks since the last debate, when serious issues had arose that no one had really discussed. Just off the top of my head, these are real issues I would have loved to hear about:

What do you see being our long term relationship with China?
What will your stance be about places like Tibet, where purely humanitarian issues are in play?
What about John McCain's call to eliminate the gas tax for the summer?
What is your view of the authorization of torture?
In light of the recent Yoo memos, what is your stance on executive power? Should it ever be able to override the law?
The pope is in America right now. Do you have a view on iseue X as it relates the pope? (Child abuse, relationship, wtvr)
President Bush recently called for environmental reform. What do you think is wrong with it?

All worthy questions.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: coolbeans56: Though, that debate WAS atrocious from every level.

I dont understand. If you really care about the tax plains of the candidates you can check their website. The "real" issues everyone is crying about not being discussed last night are fully covered by the candidates websites and press releases. Do you expect them to go into detail about environmental policies on live tv? Not going to happen. If they do talk about the "real" issues it will be nothing more than a sound bite! Pollution is bad! Green is good! Debates are there to find out what the candidates dont want you to learn. It's for them to slip up and tell you how they really feel and to show you how they react under pressure. By this time we all know where the candidates stand on Iraq and the economy (the two big ones) so why should they ask them about them again? Do you think that anyone of them is going to suddenly change their mind on either topic?

Yes, I KNOW what the candidates stand for, but there are a lot of people in this country who don't know, don't have the internet, and who, until know, didn't care. It would have been good to hear something about Iraq, or about the Economy, or something... anything!

Tastes Like Chicken: Well 20 of the 21 debates were about matters of substance. Heck, even the Kos debate managed to not be as biased as that one was, and that's freaking DailyKos!

And then one debate was dictated to the "moderators" (hey wonder what the root of that word is?) by a right wing radio host. Sorry, but I'm not buying that that's what a debate is supposed to be. Not everyone reads the candidate's website - the debate is a chance for people to find out about the candidates stances and policies as well as personalities. Not grill them on sniper fire or other right wing talking points.

Really? 20 out of 21? Then why is it that after every debate we have this thread? It's a guarantee biatchfest. Everyone crying about the real issues are not covered and how this person got softballs and this person was targeted. And of course it's right wing talking points! They are Democratics up there! You (the dems out there) need to see how your candidate of choice is going to stand up to the mud! Do you really want to wait till the general election to learn that Obama got nothing more then "It doesn't matter that I have a racist as a mentor and sit on panels with terrorists" before you vote for him? That's what he said! Or do you want to wait till the general to learn that Hillary is so comfortable with lying that she just admits it on tv and doesn't think twice?

You can have that or you can hear for the hundredth time how they are going to leave Iraq and tax the wealthy. One you will see over and over again in the commercials, the other you will hear and learn for the first time.

The Stealth Hippopotamus:
1 point penalty for assertion of racism with no proof. 1 point penalty for calling an ex-terrorist, who is clearly no longer a terrorist, a terrorist. 1 point penalty for strawmanning like Dorothy in heat.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: You can have that or you can hear for the hundredth time how they are going to leave Iraq and tax the wealthy. One you will see over and over again in the commercials, the other you will hear and learn for the first time.

What asinine world are you living in where that debate was our only chance to hear about Wright, the flag pin, the sniper fire, and Avery? Seriously, you're asserting that those issues haven't been covered, those questions haven't been asked?

I think what that debate showed was who was out of touch: The US media, or at least, ABC news; they bought their own hype, they believe the issues they try to make important are important.

DamnYankees: All worthy questions.

Here's some more

How would you face the food crisis
What is your stand on bio fuels?
Are grain subsidies to large beef producing corporations appropriate in a grain shortage induced worldwide famine?
How would you reform the consumer credit rating system?
Would you legalize marijuana?
What would you do about the growing meth epidemic?

DamnYankees: It had been 6 weeks since the last debate, when serious issues had arose that no one had really discussed. Just off the top of my head, these are real issues I would have loved to hear about:

DamnYankees are you really trying to say that any of that stuff is new?? Ok, I will give you the McCain calls for tax break (the best idea out of Washington is a looooong time) but all that other stuff is as old as the election! And has been covered by speeches and commercials. Do you really believe that either one of them will say that Bush was right about anything on the use of power?!? Do you think that they are going to come out for torture?

Again, it's not useful to have a debate just for the candidates to read their press releases.

coolbeans56: Yes, I KNOW what the candidates stand for, but there are a lot of people in this country who don't know, don't have the internet, and who, until know, didn't care. It would have been good to hear something about Iraq, or about the Economy, or something... anything!

If they dont know now then tv, radio, mail flyers, and newspapers will fill them in on the main topics well before the election. Do we have any PA farkers in here?? Ask them what their tv and mail boxes look like! Both candidates are spending millions so you know exactly where they stand on the "real" issues. You dont have to give them a couple of hours of tv time to tell you those topics.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: DamnYankees are you really trying to say that any of that stuff is new?? Ok, I will give you the McCain calls for tax break (the best idea out of Washington is a looooong time) but all that other stuff is as old as the election! And has been covered by speeches and commercials. Do you really believe that either one of them will say that Bush was right about anything on the use of power?!? Do you think that they are going to come out for torture?

I honestly think Hillary and Obama have different views on executive power. I think they seriously do. And these people have never discussed Tibet, as far as I know, other than asking Bush not to go to the Olympics. How are those issues old? They just entered the news cycle.

Obdicut: 1 point penalty for assertion of racism with no proof. 1 point penalty for calling an ex-terrorist, who is clearly no longer a terrorist, a terrorist. 1 point penalty for strawmanning like Dorothy in heat.

1) they have the audio of Wright being racist
2) Even Obama says he is friendly with a person who wishes he planted more bombs with the USA.
3) I didn't strawman anything.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Then why is it that after every debate we have this thread? It's a guarantee biatchfest. Everyone crying about the real issues are not covered and how this person got softballs and this person was targeted. And of course it's right wing talking points!

I've been following this since the beginning, and this is the first time I remember the moderators getting reamed out by dozens of fellow journalists, getting nearly 20k comments on their site telling them how much it sucked, and having Sean Hannity literally, no joke, feeding the mods a question the day before. There will always be whiners - but the scale of this backlash ought to tell you something.

DamnYankees: I honestly think Hillary and Obama have different views on executive power. I think they seriously do. And these people have never discussed Tibet, as far as I know, other than asking Bush not to go to the Olympics. How are those issues old? They just entered the news cycle

Also, this.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: You can have that or you can hear for the hundredth time how they are going to leave Iraq and tax the wealthy. One you will see over and over again in the commercials, the other you will hear and learn for the first time.

For the first time? On bizarro world maybe. Where are there people who haven't heard of all those scandals? Antarctica maybe? That's just silly, and to assume that if there were people who hadn't heard of those scandals, they'd still be well-informed enough to know the stances from their websites. Where are these web-savvy martians?

And if you don't want to hear about taxes and Iraq again, you should be right here with us demanding better questioning.

has anyone considered that maybe there's just no point in them debating again?

he's going to win the nom, and he gains nothing from debating clinton.

DamnYankees: I honestly think Hillary and Obama have different views on executive power. I think they seriously do. And these people have never discussed Tibet, as far as I know, other than asking Bush not to go to the Olympics. How are those issues old? They just entered the news cycle.

Then ask them about it! They would be more then happy to answer those questions! A debate is the only time that the candidate can't look at their watch and go "oops, got to go" and run out of the room. It's the best time to ask them questions they dont want to answer.
Mind you I'm not saying that the debate was the best ever. However I dont think we see eye to eye on what a debate is really for.

The Stealth Hippopotamus:

1) they have the audio of Wright being racist

Being anti-Israel is racist? How so?

2) Even Obama says he is friendly with a person who wishes he planted more bombs with the USA.

Is Ayer's statement "I feel we didn't do enough" a reference to a desire to have planted more bombs and killed people? Here's what Ayers says about it, Ayers later explained that by "no regrets" he meant that he didn't regret his efforts to oppose the Vietnam War, and that "we didn't do enough" meant that efforts to stop the war were obviously inadequate as it dragged on for a decade."

3) I didn't strawman anything.

you can hear for the hundredth time how they are going to leave Iraq and tax the wealthy.

That's a strawman, right there.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 1) they have the audio of Wright being racist

A racist believes that one race is superior to another. Or, one race is inferior to the others. It does not mean, "Has wacky ideas about white people." If you can show me that Wright believes white people are inferior, then maybe I'd buy it. Otherwise it's just the normal obfuscation and twisting of meaning that we've come to expect from pundits. He's messed up and mistaken, but he's not a racist. Let me ask you this: what would be a worse situation.

A. a black person surrounded by KKK members
B. a gay person surrounded by homophobes
C. a white person surrounded by Wright and a bunch of TUCoC churchgoers

They aren't even close to equivalent.

And the William Ayers connection is tenuous at absolute best. But let me ask you: what is the purpose of the 2nd amendment? It hinges on the idea that some day the people will need to rise up and defend the country against the government. The Weathermen did not attack civilians, nor did they attack indiscriminately. Aside from stupidly blowing themselves up, I'm fairly certain they only targeted the government. Is that so wrong? Should people not be allowed to attack the government if they believe it has become tyrannical?

Tastes Like Chicken: I've been following this since the beginning, and this is the first time I remember the moderators getting reamed out by dozens of fellow journalists, getting nearly 20k comments on their site telling them how much it sucked, and having Sean Hannity literally, no joke, feeding the mods a question the day before. There will always be whiners - but the scale of this backlash ought to tell you something.

Really? I'm sorry but this happens every time. 20K? Sorry but I'm not impressed. And so what if Hannity gave him a question? I bet it was already on the list. Or one alot like it. It was not totally out of left field.
I think the real questions are. What do you think was really going on? Do you think that ABC set out to have a bad debate? They spent millions of dollars (both in production and lost ads) to put this thing on. Why would they frag this? Do you really think that ABC is some bastion of right wingers trying to destroy the dems? Really what do you think?

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Then ask them about it! They would be more then happy to answer those questions! A debate is the only time that the candidate can't look at their watch and go "oops, got to go" and run out of the room. It's the best time to ask them questions they dont want to answer.
Mind you I'm not saying that the debate was the best ever. However I dont think we see eye to eye on what a debate is really for.

I think we both would agree that debate #21 was just unnecessary. It shouldn't have happened - there was no need for it.

But if they are going to be there, ask them something which would inform people about their policies. If your standard is "don't ask them anything they can talk about in a speech", you might as well ask Obama how long his dick is, or ask Hillary if she ever watched Bill ream Gennifer Flowers. There's a difference between hard questions and good questions. I have no problems with getting very tough on Obama and Hillary, but do it policy wise. Dril Hillary on her Iran vote. Drill Obama, hard, on his hypocrisy about meeting with Hamas. You can hammer people very hard without resorting to nonsense.

Obdicut: Is Ayer's statement "I feel we didn't do enough" a reference to a desire to have planted more bombs and killed people? Here's what Ayers says about it, Ayers later explained that by "no regrets" he meant that he didn't regret his efforts to oppose the Vietnam War, and that "we didn't do enough" meant that efforts to stop the war were obviously inadequate as it dragged on for a decade."

Ok I can believe that. Still set bombs, still proud that set bombs and is friendly with Obama. Hey I'm friends with Charles Manson but that says nothing about me, it was in the 60's when his crimes were committed! ::faceplam::

Obdicut: That's a strawman, right there.

How is that setting up a false argument by mis reping someone else's statement?!


Tastes Like Chicken: A racist believes that one race is superior to another. Or, one race is inferior to the others. It does not mean, "Has wacky ideas about white people." If you can show me that Wright believes white people are inferior, then maybe I'd buy it. Otherwise it's just the normal obfuscation and twisting of meaning that we've come to expect from pundits. He's messed up and mistaken, but he's not a racist. Let me ask you this: what would be a worse situation.

He thinks white people are evil!! Like we are all one people and we get together in the hills somewhere to discuss the next plague we going to release on the black people. He compares the government to the Klan! What is so hard to understand?

Tastes Like Chicken: And the William Ayers connection is tenuous at absolute best. But let me ask you: what is the purpose of the 2nd amendment? It hinges on the idea that some day the people will need to rise up and defend the country against the government. The Weathermen did not attack civilians, nor did they attack indiscriminately. Aside from stupidly blowing themselves up, I'm fairly certain they only targeted the government. Is that so wrong? Should people not be allowed to attack the government if they believe it has become tyrannical?

So I have the right to fire bomb the locale recruiter? As long as I am targeting someone dedicating their lives to defend mine I'm all good? Arms used against our government are to be used as a last line. Last time I check Nixon did not suspend elections and start storming personal homes.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Ok I can believe that. Still set bombs, still proud that set bombs and is friendly with Obama. Hey I'm friends with Charles Manson but that says nothing about me, it was in the 60's when his crimes were committed! ::faceplam::

So you're now just intentionally lying, by saying that he's friendly with Obama? Or are you trying to prove your own point about how these were good questions to ask because you're totally, woefully ignorant about them?

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Ok I can believe that. Still set bombs, still proud that set bombs and is friendly with Obama. Hey I'm friends with Charles Manson but that says nothing about me, it was in the 60's when his crimes were committed! ::faceplam::

Obama is sponsored by Ted Kennedy, who is a Catholic. Catholics follow the Pope. The Pope was a Nazi Youth. Thus, Obama loves Hitler.

Obdicut: So you're now just intentionally lying, by saying that he's friendly with Obama? Or are you trying to prove your own point about how these were good questions to ask because you're totally, woefully ignorant about them?

Probably both.

DamnYankees: But if they are going to be there, ask them something which would inform people about their policies. If your standard is "don't ask them anything they can talk about in a speech", you might as well ask Obama how long his dick is, or ask Hillary if she ever watched Bill ream Gennifer Flowers. There's a difference between hard questions and good questions. I have no problems with getting very tough on Obama and Hillary, but do it policy wise. Dril Hillary on her Iran vote. Drill Obama, hard, on his hypocrisy about meeting with Hamas. You can hammer people very hard without resorting to nonsense.

Oh we can totally agree on it could have been better. I would have love to see Obama's answer on how he can say he is for the 2nd and still write that he supported the DC gun ban. I would love to see Hillary answer if she still thought their was a right wing conspiracy.
The only point we had was wither or not you got anything useful from this debate. I think you did. You saw that neither of the candidates are ready for the mud that is about to fly. Is that good info to have? I think so. If Obama was able to show that he really is smooth without a teleprompter in front of him then he would have seal the deal with PA. If he could have shown us that he was ready for anything the would put the last nail in Hillary's coffin. However (as I expected) Hillary did just good enough to hold on to what she had. It was Obama's to win and he could not close. Hillary is still your best bet for victory.

Obdicut: So you're now just intentionally lying, by saying that he's friendly with Obama? Or are you trying to prove your own point about how these were good questions to ask because you're totally, woefully ignorant about them?

This Hippopotamus character has been shouting "OMFG!!11! Hitlery iz inevitible!!!!11 We're all gonna die!!1!1!" from Fark's rooftops for months now. He's sorta dug himself a hole.

He's got too much personally invested in Obama's defeat to alter the narrative at this point, so he's willing to make a fool of himself now in the blind hope that he will look like less of a fool later. He's an impending train wreck.

Obdicut: So you're now just intentionally lying, by saying that he's friendly with Obama? Or are you trying to prove your own point about how these were good questions to ask because you're totally, woefully ignorant about them?

1) never said I was friendly with Obama. But he is the candidate I would most like to get a beer with.
2) get your snark meter checked. Did you really think (after my rant about how your friends say something about you) that I would admit I was friends with that nutjob?!?

HulkHands: Obama is sponsored by Ted Kennedy, who is a Catholic. Catholics follow the Pope. The Pope was a Nazi Youth. Thus, Obama loves Hitler.

We are not playing 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon here. If Obama was hanging out with Hitler (is that a godwin?) of his own free will then yeah I would guess that Obama really didn't have a problem with what Hitler believes. And I would be really distressed about him hanging out with ashes. Do you have to believe everything your friends believe in? Hell no. I have Marxists as friends. However if I found out that one of them was building bombs to start the revolution then I would drop out of the weekly poker game. My friends can have radically different views then I do, in fact I enjoy it. However when they start breaking the law or preaching hate I'm out of there. If I went to a weekly Klan meeting would you think I was for white power?

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 1) never said I was friendly with Obama. But he is the candidate I would most like to get a beer with.
2) get your snark meter checked. Did you really think (after my rant about how your friends say something about you) that I would admit I was friends with that nutjob?!?

Are you just not reading correctly? I asked why you asserted that Obama was friendly with Ayers, when that's a lie.

sigdiamond2000: This Hippopotamus character has been shouting "OMFG!!11! Hitlery iz inevitible!!!!11 We're all gonna die!!1!1!" from Fark's rooftops for months now. He's sorta dug himself a hole.
He's got too much personally invested in Obama's defeat to alter the narrative at this point, so he's willing to make a fool of himself now in the blind hope that he will look like less of a fool later. He's an impending train wreck.

Invested? Really? So I may be wrong about the current primary. Would not be the first time or the last. But I really think I got this one right. But if I turn out to be wrong I will admit it, it's not like I can deny it! And I have stated on many occasions that no one candidate is going to damn or save us. Do I think it will suck when hillary is in the white house, oh hell ya. Have I ever said I was going to move? Hell no.
How I'm I making a fool of myself? Just saying if you lay down with dogs you wake up with fleas. Obama better get a better line then "Oh, we can move past it" if people keep finding questionable relationships.

If I'm really a character where is my Magic Card......

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 1) never said I was friendly with Obama. But he is the candidate I would most like to get a beer with.
2) get your snark meter checked. Did you really think (after my rant about how your friends say something about you) that I would admit I was friends with that nutjob?!?

Do you really have no reading comprehension?

The Stealth Hippopotamus: My friends can have radically different views then I do, in fact I enjoy it. However when they start breaking the law or preaching hate I'm out of there. If I went to a weekly Klan meeting would you think I was for white power?

How would you feel if one of your friend's husbands broke two terrorists out of jail?

Obdicut: Are you just not reading correctly? I asked why you asserted that Obama was friendly with Ayers, when that's a lie.



"Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school," he said. "They're certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together."- Obama chief strategist David Axelrod

Only lie here is the fact that Obama's kids are much younger then Ayers and there for did not go to school together.
Sorry but I dont care if he was his next door neighbor. I could not and would not expect to be friendly with a man like that. We sure in the hell would not see the inside of each others houses. However if that was the only poorly chosen friend I dont think it would hurt him however with him, Wright, and Rezko coupled with the flubs by his wife it has not helped him.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Only lie here is the fact that Obama's kids are much younger then Ayers and there for did not go to school together.

So therefore they're not friendly, according to your quote. Well done!

I'll make you a magic card in just a minute.

Obdicut: I'll make you a magic card in just a minute.

Tap card to meld one creature's attributes to another.

Obdicut: So therefore they're not friendly, according to your quote. Well done!

I'll make you a magic card in just a minute.

No, David knows that this is not a good thing so he tries to say that they are friendly because their kids go to school together. I wonder why he felt the need to fabricate that lie? Could it be that the chief strategist of the Obama camp understands something that you do not? Maybe he understands that admitting that that Obama is friends with a self admitted terrorist is not a good thing.


/lunch time, see u in a few

The Stealth Hippopotamus: He thinks white people are evil!! Like we are all one people and we get together in the hills somewhere to discuss the next plague we going to release on the black people. He compares the government to the Klan! What is so hard to understand?

It's easy to understand. And it's not racism. It's stupid. It's misguided. It's wrong. But racism... no.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: If I went to a weekly Klan meeting would you think I was for white power?

Again, I want to ask for some clarification here: Answer this from earlier. what would be a worse situation.

A. a black person surrounded by KKK members
B. a gay person surrounded by homophobes
C. a white person surrounded by Wright and a bunch of TUCoC churchgoers

Do you really think a white person at TUCoC, Wright's church, would have the same experience as a black person at a Klan rally? Really? They aren't the same. It's silly to suggest they are.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: So I have the right to fire bomb the locale recruiter? As long as I am targeting someone dedicating their lives to defend mine I'm all good? Arms used against our government are to be used as a last line. Last time I check Nixon did not suspend elections and start storming personal homes.

LOL, you think the government is dedicated to defending you. I'm just doing a thought experiment here really. I don't support what the weathermen did, because like you said, Nixon wasn't that bad, but who decides when the government deserves to be overthrown? What's the point of the right to bear arms? The only reason The Weathermen are "terrorists" and not "revolutionaries" is because they failed.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: No, David knows that this is not a good thing so he tries to say that they are friendly because their kids go to school together. I wonder why he felt the need to fabricate that lie? Could it be that the chief strategist of the Obama camp understands something that you do not? Maybe he understands that admitting that that Obama is friends with a self admitted terrorist is not a good thing.

I don't really think it was a lie, more a miscommunication. The connection is Ayers is still active in the school district that Obama's kids go to and that is how they are friendly. This wasn't a prepared statement by Obama or anything, it was just a reporter asking Obama's chief strategist about the connection and the chief strategist apparently didn't know the exact connection, just something about the kids went to the same school. Obama's campaign came out and elaborated once they knew there was a mistake made.

Link (new window)

Obdicut: I'll make you a magic card in just a minute.

Ooooh, A Stealth Hippopotamus is a great visual. Should turn out great.

Its threads like these that make me reeeeeeally hope their staffers/advisors read Fark.

I bet Drew would know, he logs IP addresses right?

for good or for awesome: Ooooh, A Stealth Hippopotamus is a great visual. Should turn out great.

Oh, don't get your hopes up. I'm a hack.

The Stealth Hippopotamus:

they have the audio of Wright being racist

Pointing out the human rights abuses of the State of Israel is not racism. It is, in fact, the exact opposite. It is an attempt to bring racial injustice into the light. As for a connection between our support of the State of Israel and Radical Islamic anti-Americanism, is it so hard to think that there may be a connection?

Even Obama says he is friendly with a person who wishes he planted more bombs with the USA.

How dare Obama not punch this guy in the face every time he sees him? Come on! Is Ayers a bad guy? Probably. Almost certainly. Has he done anything violent in 35 years when Obama was 6? No. Is he now considered by the law to be an upstanding citizen? Apparently. They are neighbors and coworkers on the board on which they serve together. Perhaps Senator Obama is simply what Edward R. Murrow called "one of those civilized individuals who did not insist upon agreement with his political principles as a pre-condition for conversation or friendship." The only impact the guy seems to have had on his political career is a meet and greet arranged by Senator Obama's predecessor in the Illinois State Senate and a $200 contribution 7 years ago.

Obdicut: for good or for awesome: Ooooh, A Stealth Hippopotamus is a great visual. Should turn out great.

Oh, don't get your hopes up. I'm a hack.

That's a lot of mana to spend to shoot yourself in the foot.

Tastes Like Chicken: Do you really think a white person at TUCoC, Wright's church, would have the same experience as a black person at a Klan rally? Really? They aren't the same. It's silly to suggest they are.

Especially since that church has a mixed congregation.

John McCain cits a known, unrepentant terrorist as a hero.

Nelson "Hussein" Mandela.(p)

Obdicut: for good or for awesome: Ooooh, A Stealth Hippopotamus is a great visual. Should turn out great.

Oh, don't get your hopes up. I'm a hack.




How bout this?

Tastes Like Chicken: That's a lot of mana to spend to shoot yourself in the foot.

Yeah, kind of making a not-so-subtle point about how he totally destroys his own side of the argument in more ways than one.

I am shocked by the lack of hippo ninja pictures on the internet. I did find this though

http://www.realultimatepower.net/ninja/hippo.htm(p)

for good or for awesome: How bout this?

Lemme try