Mountain Buzz banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,408 Posts
Might add some credibility to your cause if you spelled liar correctly but given its the national review as your source, i doubt it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,507 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
i would check it out good stuff on each candidate and some great stories. some for obama, some against. you would learn more on that site than anyother politically bought out news program!
 

·
Self-Aggrandizing jackass
Joined
·
1,134 Posts
Mike, there are a couple respectable writers at NRO; I used to be a fan, but I'm not anymore. I'll bring you some criticism of NRO and how there are several writers there who can't acknowledge certain realities (that to me, at least, matter).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,907 Posts
Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama

Mike - Since you are such a fan of National Review, I guess you probably read this column written by Christopher Buckley, son of the late editor/publisher of NR:

I have known John McCain personally since 1982. I wrote a well-received speech for him. Earlier this year, I wrote in The New York Times--I'm beginning to sound like Paul Krugman, who cannot begin a column without saying, "As I warned the world in my last column..." -- a highly favorable Op-Ed about McCain, taking Rush Limbaugh and the others in the Right Wing Sanhedrin to task for going after McCain for being insufficiently conservative. I don't--still--doubt that McCain's instincts remain fundamentally conservative. But the problem is otherwise.

McCain rose to power on his personality and biography. He was authentic. He spoke truth to power. He told the media they were "jerks" (a sure sign of authenticity, to say nothing of good taste; we are jerks). He was real. He was unconventional. He embraced former anti-war leaders. He brought resolution to the awful missing-POW business. He brought about normalization with Vietnam--his former torturers! Yes, he erred in accepting plane rides and vacations from Charles Keating, but then, having been cleared on technicalities, groveled in apology before the nation. He told me across a lunch table, "The Keating business was much worse than my five and a half years in Hanoi, because I at least walked away from that with my honor." Your heart went out to the guy. I thought at the time, God, this guy should be president someday.

A year ago, when everyone, including the man I'm about to endorse, was caterwauling to get out of Iraq on the next available flight, John McCain, practically alone, said no, no--bad move. Surge. It seemed a suicidal position to take, an act of political bravery of the kind you don't see a whole lot of anymore.

But that was--sigh--then. John McCain has changed. He said, famously, apropos the Republican debacle post-1994, "We came to Washington to change it, and Washington changed us." This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget "by the end of my first term." Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,507 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
everybody is entitled to there own opinions, some of the articles in NR have some great facts, some are to much opinion if you ask me but facts don't lie. every politician is going to be scandeless, thats how they made it to where they are. anybody have the deep truth on mcsames crazy smile and obamas new logo for the U.S. just don't get any of your hopes up in change especially from somebody who can't even change Chicago.

anybody look and see what obamas actual voting record is? if you ask me he doesn't have much voice for a man with a choice!
 

·
A Political Theorist
Joined
·
239 Posts
http://frum.nationalreview.com/

Can't really say it better than NRO Blogger David Frum. When he strayed from NRO dogma and let the facts lead him to into harsh criticism of McCain and Palin, the right wing cannibals immediately began feeding on him:



"Perhaps it is our job at NRO is tell our readers only what they want to hear, without much regard to whether it is true. Perhaps it is our duty just to keep smiling and to insist that everything is dandy - that John McCain's economic policies make sense, that his selection of Sarah Palin was an act of statesmanship, that she herself is the second coming of Anna Schwartz, and that nobody but an over-educated snob would ever suggest otherwise.


"Who knows? Perhaps if I do that enthusiastically enough, somebody somewhere might even pour me a free drink or invite me onto the airwaves for a 3 minute Monday morning sunrise interview. And after all: What else could I possibly want?"
 

·
Self-Aggrandizing jackass
Joined
·
1,134 Posts
So I'm trying to get up to speed on ACORN, as I said I would.
My first two readings show me nothing that speaks out as a serious cause for concern with the Obama campaign, or the candidate himself.

My first article was from March 08, National Review Online, by Kurz. It was a lot of inuendo, frankly, which to me seemed to rely on boogey-man fear-mongering to add weight to the ultimate charge. Kurz is a heavy hitter, and if that's the best NRO can do to demonstrate a factual link between Obama and criminal activity (fraud) or even such a serious appearance of impropriety, they failed.

link:

Money quote:
*Supposedly*, Acorn’s political arm is segregated from its “non-partisan” registration and get-out-the-vote efforts, but after reading Foulkes’ case study, *this non-partisanship is exceedingly difficult to discern*. As I understand, it would be illegal for Obama to sit on a foundation board and direct money to an organization that openly served as his key get-out-the-vote volunteers on Election Day. I’m not saying Obama crossed a legal line here: *Based on Foulkes’ account, Acorn’s get-out-the-vote drive most likely observed the technicalities of “non-partisanship.*”

Nevertheless, the *possibilities* suggested by a combined reading of the New York Times piece and the Foulkes article are disturbing. *While keeping within the technicalities of the law*, Obama may have been able to direct substantial foundation money to his organized political supporters. I offer no settled conclusion, but the matter certainly warrants further investigation and discussion. Obama is supposed to be the man who transcends partisanship. Has he instead used his post at an allegedly non-partisan foundation to direct money to a supposedly non-partisan group, in pursuit of what are in fact nakedly partisan and personal ends? *I have no final answer*, but the question needs to be pursued further.
That's the best you can do, NRO? It's legal but it looks bad? Jeezus, what a boner they must've lost getting to their so called conclusion...

I'm not saying Acorn is great and good for the country and above investigation. I'm saying that I see nothing but a right-wing boogeyman here to tell me that Obama is doing something 1) illegal, or 2) Improper

Second link:
ACORN fired back yesterday at the McCain campaign, releasing a 2006 photo of the Arizona senator delivering the keynote speech at a pro-immigration rally in Miami that the group sponsored. "Maybe it is out of desperation that Senator McCain has forgotten that he was for ACORN before he was against ACORN," Lewis said in a news release.
Again, I'm not saying McCain is a hypocrite, or that he did anything improper. I'm saying this is election-year propoganda aimed at creating an emotional response from people's fear.

Those are my two readings thus far, one from NRO, one from a source whose partisanship I don't know. Two sources, one decidedly anti-Obama politically (not saying 'unfairly') and I don't see anything there worth getting my dander up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,507 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
i am still trying to understand why obama would be tied to anygroup like that or try to get more government funding to this group. what im saying is if theis group is radical as stated than what happens when obama mama is pres? i know bush cheney had someties and made some money, but is that what obama is trying to go for 2.
 

·
A Political Theorist
Joined
·
239 Posts
"i am still trying to understand why obama would be tied to anygroup like [ACORN]"

ACORN to McCain: Have You Lost That Loving Feeling?
October 13, 2008

Senator Allied with ACORN as Recently as 2006, Now Turns Cold Shoulder
October 13, 2008, Miami, FL - U.S. Senator John McCain's recent attacks on the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) are puzzling given his historic support for the organization and its efforts on behalf of immigrant Americans. As recently as February 20, 2006, Senator McCain was the keynote speaker at an ACORN-sponsored Immigration Rally in Miami, Florida at Miami Dade College – Wolfson Campus.
The rally, co-sponsored by ACORN in partnership with the New American Opportunity campaign (NAOC), Catholic League Services – Archdiocese of Miami...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,440 Posts
Mike,What ACORN does is try to register voters and circulates petitions,yes they have a liberal bias.There are plenty of conservative petitions as well. The idea of promoting voter turnout pisses off republicans because high voter turn out favors Obama,there is nothing illegal or unethical about it if they follow the rules,in fact it is good democracy.The reps are questioning whether they followed the rules which they should be called on if they didn't.There are some questionable registrations on their roles ,as would be expected with thousands/millions of people,they are transparent and even called many of them to attention themselves.What you are leaving out is the whole other side of the argument about repubs trying to TAKE AWAY PEOPLES RIGHT TO VOTE by questioning their status by caging and purging practices[see Livingstones post a couple weeks ago].

If these 'afro centric ' groups were as radical as portrayed ,why would Annenburg ,a former Reagan appointee and a conservative philanthropist continue to fund them?The link you posted said they hosted a presentation by Carruthers not that they endorsed him.Then Kurtz ties Carruthers to some other radical a sort of guilt by association twice removed.There is nothing wrong with blacks being taught cultural pride.It is totally TRUE that they have had a Euro-centric version of history forced down their throats all their lives.History has been taught in a way that downplays their contributions and glosses over their mistreatment.It is not just a slight to them, but a disservice to us all to teach such a one sided reality ,it obviously worked on you.Some black radicals carry it too far ,to be sure,I think Obama is smart enough to know better.He has been candid about a stage of his life where he tried to connect with his black side after growing up among whites.What is wrong with that?He has some connection to Wright ,wev'e already beaten that horse to death.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,890 Posts
I've been looking into ACORN as well - the best I can tell it's pretty much a red herring with little to no effect on Nov 4th. Seems like ACORN is the latest bogeyman that the GOP is trying to make stick, but ultimately it's only a voter registration effort to get poor people to register and vote.

So if some unethical worker turns in registrations for "Mickey Mouse" and "Cosmo Kramer", they're looking to get paid the extra money for more registrations. But it doesn't mean that Cosmo Kramer is actually going to show up and VOTE. Fudged registrations happen both ways, by the way. The only concrete information I could find are isolated cases of (at most) 4000 fraudulent registrations in about 6-8 locations; the majority of which were flagged and reported by ACORN to the FEC on their own (they are required by law to turn them in and not throw out suspect registrations).

So maybe 25K bad registrations in 1.3 million? That's a discard rate of 2%, which is relatively small. The workers were fudging the books for personal financial gain - they don't get paid for voters, they get paid for registrations. So, they fudged a bunch to make it seem as if they were out pounding the streets, earning their $8 per hour; which is why you saw names like Jimmy Johns and Ronald McDonald.

Call me when 10,000 dudes claiming to be Ronald McDonald show up to vote Nov 4th -otherwise, it's not voter fraud. Voter suppression is a much bigger issue, because it can affect tens of thousands of voters..
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
688 Posts
Mike,
Can you provide one example of someone being convicted of voting more than once in the last decade?
I can sure as hell supply pages and pages of articles, affidavits (from actual people purged from voter roles), etc. that prove that hundreds of thousands of people have been refused the right to vote.

What is worse, registering Mickey Mouse (who would not vote anyway) or disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of legitimate votes?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us/politics/09voting.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=colorado purge&st=cse&oref=slogin

Money quote from this NYT article:
For example, major voter registration drives have been held this year in Colorado, which has also had a significant population increase since the last presidential election, but the state has recorded a net loss of nearly 100,000 voters from its rolls since 2004.
-d
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
682 Posts
Sorry Dad, I was Fired

Mike - Since you are such a fan of National Review, I guess you probably read this column written by Christopher Buckley, son of the late editor/publisher of NR:
Apparently, Christopher Buckley bowed out of the National Review due to the response his Obama endorsement generated over there...

So, I have been effectively fatwahed (is that how you spell it?) by the conservative movement, and the magazine that my father founded must now distance itself from me. But then, conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say it’s a big-tent. Looks more like a yurt to me.

While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.

So, to paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan: I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.
Kinda sad, actually...:twisted:
 

·
Self-Aggrandizing jackass
Joined
·
1,134 Posts
Another nail in the coffin of the Republican party is the intolerance toward dissent within its own ranks. What's left of the Republican establishment has gone necrotic. I don't know whether the party will actually die and a new second party take its place, or whether its death will cause the remaining adherents to redefine themselves in a more grounded fashion with facts. If the Ron Paul/libertarian camp were smart, they'd start redefining themselves beyond Republican.

The Architect's lasting legacy will be the marginilization of the party for the next 20 years, at best. A new generation of voters, coming of age under Dubya, will forever keep their distance from the intolerant, self-deluding, theocratic nutjobs that have represented Republicans for the last 8 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,907 Posts
Richard Lugar says Obama is CORRECT

John McCain seems to think we shouldn't talk to our enemies. Apparently he was not paying attention during the entire Cold War when we maintained contact with the USSR. Now, his highly regarded Republican colleague, Richard Lugar, has said that Obama's approach to diplomacy is the correct one.

The ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee parted ways with his party's presidential nominee Wednesday by endorsing Democrat Barack Obama's approach to diplomacy.


In a lengthy speech at the National Defense University, Indiana Sen. Richard G. Lugar weighed the benefits of talking to foreign leaders, including U.S. enemies, against other actions, such as military force. The issue marks one of the sharpest divides between Obama and John McCain, who has called the Democratic nominee naive for suggesting that he would sit down with leaders such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Lugar, however, praised Obama, noting that isolation often does not resolve contentious issues.

"He correctly cautions against the implication that hostile nations must be dealt with almost exclusively through isolation or military force," Lugar said in a prepared remarks released before his speech. "In some cases, refusing to talk can even be dangerous."
I've liked and respected Lugar for a long time. Once again, he has shown why he is highly regarded by folks on both sides of the aisle.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top