Anil Dash's Linguistic Analysis of Sarah Palin
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
The media spent a lot of time studying John Kerry's time in the military too. With Obama they spent time on Jeremiah Wright, his flag pin, his childhood, his father in Kenya, etc. It's not as if they've completely ignored his past. Do you think they're ignoring a particular issue in his past?
They've done none of that, except as it served to promote their candidates talking points. They have worked in every single case to cover up democrat flaws and demonzie critics. That is precisely why 'Swift Boating' is a derogatory term to liberals. It means: "Someone telling an uncomfortable truth about one of our guys". And that is precisely why the effort to expose Obama's association with Ayers is reduced to racism by the most strained reasoning imaginable. Lie, obfuscate,lie,obfuscate, lie, obfuscate - thats what the left does. This campaign has provided undeniable proof of that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Lie, obfuscate,lie,obfuscate, lie, obfuscate
are you summarizing the current "right-wing" administration?
----------------------------------------------------------- "When I first saw it, I just thought that you really, really enjoyed programming in java." - Leslie Sanford
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Lie, obfuscate,lie,obfuscate, lie, obfuscate
are you summarizing the current "right-wing" administration?
----------------------------------------------------------- "When I first saw it, I just thought that you really, really enjoyed programming in java." - Leslie Sanford
also, i hate the terms "right" "left" "leftist" "right-wing". they hold very relative meaning and it only serves to forward the illusion that this is a 2 party system. :)
----------------------------------------------------------- "When I first saw it, I just thought that you really, really enjoyed programming in java." - Leslie Sanford
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
The media spent a lot of time studying John Kerry's time in the military too. With Obama they spent time on Jeremiah Wright, his flag pin, his childhood, his father in Kenya, etc. It's not as if they've completely ignored his past. Do you think they're ignoring a particular issue in his past?
They've done none of that, except as it served to promote their candidates talking points. They have worked in every single case to cover up democrat flaws and demonzie critics. That is precisely why 'Swift Boating' is a derogatory term to liberals. It means: "Someone telling an uncomfortable truth about one of our guys". And that is precisely why the effort to expose Obama's association with Ayers is reduced to racism by the most strained reasoning imaginable. Lie, obfuscate,lie,obfuscate, lie, obfuscate - thats what the left does. This campaign has provided undeniable proof of that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
that is precisely why the effort to expose Obama's association with Ayers is reduced to racism by the most strained reasoning imaginable
I agree that it would take strained reasoning to think the claims of association with Ayers are racist. I've already said though, that I see no substance in the claims about "palling around" because it doesn't have a concrete meaning. Ayers is a terrorist because he set off bombs 30 or 40 years ago. Obama was 8 at the time and he wasn't involved. Do you believe that Obama intends to set off bombs? Do you believe Obama is giving any kind of support to people who are setting off bombs? In short, do you have any concrete evidence that Obama is acting as or supporting terrorists?
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Lie, obfuscate,lie,obfuscate, lie, obfuscate
are you summarizing the current "right-wing" administration?
----------------------------------------------------------- "When I first saw it, I just thought that you really, really enjoyed programming in java." - Leslie Sanford
jgasm wrote:
are you summarizing the current "right-wing" administration?
There's nothing particularly "right-wing" about Bush. The guy is responsible for nationalising much of the banking industry of the U.S. But I gave you a five for the joke.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
that is precisely why the effort to expose Obama's association with Ayers is reduced to racism by the most strained reasoning imaginable
I agree that it would take strained reasoning to think the claims of association with Ayers are racist. I've already said though, that I see no substance in the claims about "palling around" because it doesn't have a concrete meaning. Ayers is a terrorist because he set off bombs 30 or 40 years ago. Obama was 8 at the time and he wasn't involved. Do you believe that Obama intends to set off bombs? Do you believe Obama is giving any kind of support to people who are setting off bombs? In short, do you have any concrete evidence that Obama is acting as or supporting terrorists?
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
Ayers is a terrorist because he set off bombs 30 or 40 years ago. Obama was 8 at the time
I've never understood this argument. Ayers is still going aound wishing he'd done more. Obama held fundraisers in Ayer's living room, when he was in his forties. Unless Obama is getting a pass for every association he's had until six months ago, Obama needs to explain what his relationship with Ayers was and why he tried to pretend he didn't have one.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
Ayers is a terrorist because he set off bombs 30 or 40 years ago. Obama was 8 at the time
I've never understood this argument. Ayers is still going aound wishing he'd done more. Obama held fundraisers in Ayer's living room, when he was in his forties. Unless Obama is getting a pass for every association he's had until six months ago, Obama needs to explain what his relationship with Ayers was and why he tried to pretend he didn't have one.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Ayers is still going aound wishing he'd done more.
You're taking that out of context. He said he wished he had done more to stop the war, not that he wished he'd set more bombs. Look up the original article to learn the full context. Is he sorry his group made bombs? Who knows, but his girlfriend was killed by one of their own bombs and that probably had an impact on him. The only people his group ever killed were their own members.
-
also, i hate the terms "right" "left" "leftist" "right-wing". they hold very relative meaning and it only serves to forward the illusion that this is a 2 party system. :)
----------------------------------------------------------- "When I first saw it, I just thought that you really, really enjoyed programming in java." - Leslie Sanford
jgasm wrote:
also, i hate the terms "right" "left" "leftist" "right-wing". they hold very relative meaning and it only serves to forward the illusion that this is a 2 party system
So do I, BTW, but not because of anything to do with the two party system. The term "right wing" is merely an invention of the socialist to create an artificial political spectrum with them at one end (the good side) and everything that threatens them at the other end (the bad side - you know - with Adolh Hitler) I'm trying to break my self of the habit.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Lie, obfuscate,lie,obfuscate, lie, obfuscate
are you summarizing the current "right-wing" administration?
----------------------------------------------------------- "When I first saw it, I just thought that you really, really enjoyed programming in java." - Leslie Sanford
jgasm wrote:
are you summarizing the current "right-wing" administration?
We have absolutely no proof that the Bush administration has done any such thing until congress does its job and properly investigates him. His actions are subject to official inquery - that of the media and the democrat political machine are not.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
Ayers is a terrorist because he set off bombs 30 or 40 years ago. Obama was 8 at the time
I've never understood this argument. Ayers is still going aound wishing he'd done more. Obama held fundraisers in Ayer's living room, when he was in his forties. Unless Obama is getting a pass for every association he's had until six months ago, Obama needs to explain what his relationship with Ayers was and why he tried to pretend he didn't have one.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Obama held fundraisers in Ayer's living room
With bombs? No?
Obama needs to explain what his relationship with Ayers was and why he tried to pretend he didn't have one.
You need to show what terrorist activities that Ayers has taken part in recently and how Obama was in on it.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
that is precisely why the effort to expose Obama's association with Ayers is reduced to racism by the most strained reasoning imaginable
I agree that it would take strained reasoning to think the claims of association with Ayers are racist. I've already said though, that I see no substance in the claims about "palling around" because it doesn't have a concrete meaning. Ayers is a terrorist because he set off bombs 30 or 40 years ago. Obama was 8 at the time and he wasn't involved. Do you believe that Obama intends to set off bombs? Do you believe Obama is giving any kind of support to people who are setting off bombs? In short, do you have any concrete evidence that Obama is acting as or supporting terrorists?
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
I've already said though, that I see no substance in the claims about "palling around" because it doesn't have a concrete meaning. Ayers is a terrorist because he set off bombs 30 or 40 years ago. Obama was 8 at the time and he wasn't involved. Do you believe that Obama intends to set off bombs? Do you believe Obama is giving any kind of support to people who are setting off bombs? In short, do you have any concrete evidence that Obama is acting as or supporting terrorists?
But don't you think any such association is worthy of the closest possible scrutiny by the media? Isn't that their job? Don't the American people deserve such information in order to form an appropriate understanding of someone about to go into the oval office? The association may have been perfectly innocent, but the fact that the same media which told us every detail of an average American citizen's personal life within hours, which has dug through Sarah Palin's trash for information, has done no reporting on the Ayers/Obama relationsip of any substance. That sets alarm bells off in my mind. And that is merely the tip of the ice berg. Why the hell did he even pick Chicago as a place to go after leaving law school? The very epicenter of radical community organization and black liberation theology. I have always been willing to give Obama a pass that he is who he says he is, but the more information that ever so slowly surfaces on the guy just keeps getting more and more scary. His entire life appears to be exclusively a walking talking final exam in Salinski's rules for radicals. Do you honestly believe that a conservative candidate who had grown up with neo-nazi role models, who had sought out neo-nazi associations as a young adult, who had depended upon neo-nazi contacts in the growth of his career, who had ended up at the center of an area associated with neo-nazi activities, and who spoke with overt neo-nazi rhetoric wouldn't be considered a neo-nazi? And do you think the media would not have reported exhaustively on every little binary bit of that history?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Obama held fundraisers in Ayer's living room
With bombs? No?
Obama needs to explain what his relationship with Ayers was and why he tried to pretend he didn't have one.
You need to show what terrorist activities that Ayers has taken part in recently and how Obama was in on it.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
With bombs? No?
What a stupid fucking question. You want to claim that there's a statute of limitations on terrorism, fine by me. Ayers got off on a technicality, even though it was obvious he was as guilty as could be.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
You need to show what terrorist activities that Ayers has taken part in recently and how Obama was in on it.
The hell I do. Obama's running for office and is asking for my vote. I on the other hand am a private citizen, not running for anything. I don't need to show shit. He does.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
that is precisely why the effort to expose Obama's association with Ayers is reduced to racism by the most strained reasoning imaginable
I agree that it would take strained reasoning to think the claims of association with Ayers are racist. I've already said though, that I see no substance in the claims about "palling around" because it doesn't have a concrete meaning. Ayers is a terrorist because he set off bombs 30 or 40 years ago. Obama was 8 at the time and he wasn't involved. Do you believe that Obama intends to set off bombs? Do you believe Obama is giving any kind of support to people who are setting off bombs? In short, do you have any concrete evidence that Obama is acting as or supporting terrorists?
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
So there wouldn't be a problem if McCain had started his campaign for president from the home of one of the Manson family? :-D
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
I've already said though, that I see no substance in the claims about "palling around" because it doesn't have a concrete meaning. Ayers is a terrorist because he set off bombs 30 or 40 years ago. Obama was 8 at the time and he wasn't involved. Do you believe that Obama intends to set off bombs? Do you believe Obama is giving any kind of support to people who are setting off bombs? In short, do you have any concrete evidence that Obama is acting as or supporting terrorists?
But don't you think any such association is worthy of the closest possible scrutiny by the media? Isn't that their job? Don't the American people deserve such information in order to form an appropriate understanding of someone about to go into the oval office? The association may have been perfectly innocent, but the fact that the same media which told us every detail of an average American citizen's personal life within hours, which has dug through Sarah Palin's trash for information, has done no reporting on the Ayers/Obama relationsip of any substance. That sets alarm bells off in my mind. And that is merely the tip of the ice berg. Why the hell did he even pick Chicago as a place to go after leaving law school? The very epicenter of radical community organization and black liberation theology. I have always been willing to give Obama a pass that he is who he says he is, but the more information that ever so slowly surfaces on the guy just keeps getting more and more scary. His entire life appears to be exclusively a walking talking final exam in Salinski's rules for radicals. Do you honestly believe that a conservative candidate who had grown up with neo-nazi role models, who had sought out neo-nazi associations as a young adult, who had depended upon neo-nazi contacts in the growth of his career, who had ended up at the center of an area associated with neo-nazi activities, and who spoke with overt neo-nazi rhetoric wouldn't be considered a neo-nazi? And do you think the media would not have reported exhaustively on every little binary bit of that history?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But don't you think any such association is worthy of the closest possible scrutiny by the media? Isn't that their job? Don't the American people deserve such information in order to form an appropriate understanding of someone about to go into the oval office?
Yup, I agree that the media's job is scrutiny and they should scrutinize Obama, including his associates. If there's something there people have the right to know.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The association may have been perfectly innocent
What if it was innocent? They'd probably report the facts they found, ie: Ayers and Obama served on a board together, etc. It would probably be a lot like what they've already reported. Maybe they looked, didn't find anything much and that's what they've reported. If Fox News had found any leads, do you think they'd have given up and buried it? Wouldn't they continue to investigate and report what they'd found? If they haven't reported it, there's either nothing there or there's some kind of massive conspiracy to hide it. Palin has said Obama was "palling around" with Ayers, but she hasn't said anything specific. If she knows something more specific why doesn't she come out and say it, or at least drop some hints. Maybe she doesn't know anything, so she's just making vague accusations.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
With bombs? No?
What a stupid fucking question. You want to claim that there's a statute of limitations on terrorism, fine by me. Ayers got off on a technicality, even though it was obvious he was as guilty as could be.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
You need to show what terrorist activities that Ayers has taken part in recently and how Obama was in on it.
The hell I do. Obama's running for office and is asking for my vote. I on the other hand am a private citizen, not running for anything. I don't need to show shit. He does.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
The hell I do. Obama's running for office and is asking for my vote. I on the other hand am a private citizen, not running for anything. I don't need to show sh*t. He does.
You're free to vote for anyone you like, but if you want to say Obama is taking part in terrorist activities then you have to prove it. You have not provided a single bit of evidence to support that claim.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
-
So there wouldn't be a problem if McCain had started his campaign for president from the home of one of the Manson family? :-D
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
DRHuff wrote:
So there wouldn't be a problem if McCain had started his campaign for president from the home of one of the Manson family?
If McCain endorsed and/or took part in the activities of the Manson family that would be a problem. The key here is not simple association, but what a person is actively doing. For example, if you go golfing with someone who you later find out is a murderer, that doesn't mean you're a murderer. If you kill someone, then you're a murderer. It's not contagious. If Obama serves on a board with someone who was a terrorist almost 40 years before, that doesn't make him a terrorist. If he blew people up with a bomb, that would make him a terrorist. It's not contagious.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
-
Oakman wrote:
The hell I do. Obama's running for office and is asking for my vote. I on the other hand am a private citizen, not running for anything. I don't need to show sh*t. He does.
You're free to vote for anyone you like, but if you want to say Obama is taking part in terrorist activities then you have to prove it. You have not provided a single bit of evidence to support that claim.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
if you want to say Obama is taking part in terrorist activities then you have to prove it.
Please provide a link to the post where I said that Obama was taking part in terrorist activities.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
You have not provided a single bit of evidence to support that claim.
Please provide a link to the post where I said that Obama was taking part in terrorist activities.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
DRHuff wrote:
So there wouldn't be a problem if McCain had started his campaign for president from the home of one of the Manson family?
If McCain endorsed and/or took part in the activities of the Manson family that would be a problem. The key here is not simple association, but what a person is actively doing. For example, if you go golfing with someone who you later find out is a murderer, that doesn't mean you're a murderer. If you kill someone, then you're a murderer. It's not contagious. If Obama serves on a board with someone who was a terrorist almost 40 years before, that doesn't make him a terrorist. If he blew people up with a bomb, that would make him a terrorist. It's not contagious.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
For example, if you go golfing with someone who you later find out is a murderer, that doesn't mean you're a murderer.
No but if you keep golfing with them that might mean you lack a certain amount of good judgement and common sense. Unless you are implying that in all the time that Obama worked with him he was never informed that Bill Ayers was 'that Bill Ayers'?
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
that doesn't make him a terrorist.
I am not saying that he is a terrorist - just that his choice of acquaintances seems to indicate either an astounding lack of judgement or an implicit acceptance that what Ayers did just wasn't that big of a deal. Either way it has a profound influence on my opinion of the man. Lucky for you this Canadian doesn't get to vote!
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
For example, if you go golfing with someone who you later find out is a murderer, that doesn't mean you're a murderer.
No but if you keep golfing with them that might mean you lack a certain amount of good judgement and common sense. Unless you are implying that in all the time that Obama worked with him he was never informed that Bill Ayers was 'that Bill Ayers'?
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
that doesn't make him a terrorist.
I am not saying that he is a terrorist - just that his choice of acquaintances seems to indicate either an astounding lack of judgement or an implicit acceptance that what Ayers did just wasn't that big of a deal. Either way it has a profound influence on my opinion of the man. Lucky for you this Canadian doesn't get to vote!
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
DRHuff wrote:
I am not saying that he is a terrorist - just that his choice of acquaintances seems to indicate either an astounding lack of judgement or an implicit acceptance that what Ayers did just wasn't that big of a deal.
I could say the same thing about McCain and Keating, except that Keating gave McCain a lot of money to put pressure on other politicians. Actually, that's a lot worse and it does say something direct about McCain's character. I hope you didn't vote for Stephen Harper. ;P
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
if you want to say Obama is taking part in terrorist activities then you have to prove it.
Please provide a link to the post where I said that Obama was taking part in terrorist activities.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
You have not provided a single bit of evidence to support that claim.
Please provide a link to the post where I said that Obama was taking part in terrorist activities.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Please provide a link to the post where I said that Obama was taking part in terrorist activities.
That sounds like some kind of, I dunno, gotcha question or something. I'm the apparent king of gotcha questions, so I'm not going to fall for it. ;P So you agree then that Obama wasn't taking part in terrorist activities? Ya shoulda told me sooner! :-D
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
-
DRHuff wrote:
I am not saying that he is a terrorist - just that his choice of acquaintances seems to indicate either an astounding lack of judgement or an implicit acceptance that what Ayers did just wasn't that big of a deal.
I could say the same thing about McCain and Keating, except that Keating gave McCain a lot of money to put pressure on other politicians. Actually, that's a lot worse and it does say something direct about McCain's character. I hope you didn't vote for Stephen Harper. ;P
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
I hope you didn't vote for Stephen Harper
Nope - we don't vote for the Prime Minister unless you are in his riding. Both my parents did though. As for me - well I'm just one of those rednecked Alberta knuckledragging racists - so I voted for a guy named Deepak! :-D
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave