On 14-Oct-08, at 9:01 AM, Francis Drouillard wrote: > On Oct 13, 2008, at 7:55 PM, Michael Luscombe wrote: > >> On 13-Oct-08, at 8:19 PM, Francis Drouillard wrote: >> >>> But I still have these nagging you aren't willing to answer with a >>> simple yes or no. >> -- >> If it were a simple yes or no, then we'd be letting you run away with >> "presumed facts", or lies, as they are commonly known. >>> Did Obama have an association with Ayers? >> -- >> Yes. >>> Did Obama have an >>> association with ACORN? >> -- >> Yes. >> [snip] >> I honestly don't know where any of this is going. >> >> Michael > > Okay, we agree on some basic facts. > > Now try getting my opinion about why those facts are important before > spouting off on the matter and telling me how wrong I am. > > Why do I think it's important? Many -- including me -- question why > he'd associate with anyone with a past such as Mr. Ayers. No other > candidate for president has associated with a unrepentant domestic > terrorist, then tried to downplay that association. What did he get > from that association? Weren't any other like minded liberals > available to advance his cause? > > And, what did he accomplish at CAC? He handed out millions of dollars > worth of grants. How did he make those choices? Was the money spent > wisely? Were the supported programs effective? Answers to those > questions address how Obama may govern in the future. > > Then there is ACORN. Looks like they're going to be at the forefront > of voter fraud this time around. Why did the Obama campaign give them > $800K? > > ACORN is also largely responsible for loosening credit standards at > Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. What did Obama do for them in the past? > (Besides suing banks that refused to lend to those that couldn't > repay their loans.) > > This could become the October surprise, but only because the MSM made > it so. In a build the man up then knock him down way. It may cost the > Democrats the Whitehouse. It certainly denied Hillary the opportunity > to get back there. > > You may recall, my biggest gripe this election season is the > absolutely horrible performance of the press. You may not want to > believe this, but McCain can still win. Then you will be griping > about the performance of the press -- and you may have a good reason.
-- Look, Francis, I know you don't like the guy. I've said it in the past, and I'll say it again now. I am not an Obama-maniac. He's a politician, like any other, and that makes him 5 times slimier than a regular person. Clean people wouldn't excel in Politics as the system exists in the US right now. Posting stories telling me he's slimy, or just raising the spector of untruth just doesn't change anything. Both candidates are less than I had hoped for, because they are both politicians. I think Hilary would have been even slimier than Obama. But whatever I don't like about Obama, McCain represents the continuation of an apalling regime. Science has suffered, human rights have suffered, your constitution has suffered, the strength of the UN has suffered, Iraq has suffered, Afganistan was half-rescued, greedy corporations were given the key to the cookie jar and ate all the damn cookies. There's nothing I liked about the last guy, and McCain is his replacement. In that sense, I would endorse Ralph Nader before John McCain. -- Michael --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
