VP Debate Predictions

I’m predicting my head will explode half way through the debate.

Mick28:

I abhor hate from anyone; but you’ve illustrated the “slippery slope” one can get on with “Tit-for-Tat” arguments.

Strom Thurmond (and other segregationist/“Dixie-Crats”) like Jesse Helms, George Wallace, etc. were in positions of Political Power that actually strengthened and supported attitudes, and most importantly LAWS (e.g. the Jim Crow laws and the segregation of schools, public and private facilities, secondary schools and Colleges;

The list goes on and on), that had the direct effect of hurting a lot of people by depriving them of basic rights,(like voting) for may years. (By the way, the Ku Klux Klan was at one time a VERY strong political party, and in later years were often the “muscle” of the “Dixiecrats”).

Wrights vitriolic Bullshit probably hasn’t hurt anyone but the very people he preaches it to; and now Obama, as people continue to bring it up as “Tit-for-Tat” over and over again in this campaign.

Wright means nothing to me, and probably not to you either; except as some “got 'cha” to hang Obama with.

And he sure as hell isn’t keeping people from voting or getting them hung if they do.

Mufasa

You really don’t get it man.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You really don’t get it man.[/quote]

That won’t be the first time, Tirib!

But a lot of these “Tit-for-Tat” arguments, (that really aren’t), just drive me crazy.

Believe me; I know what the next argument will be “But Wright influenced someone’s thinking who is running for President”.

No he hasn’t; no more than Ho Chi Minh influenced McCain.

Mufasa

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
<<< No he hasn’t; no more than Ho Chi Minh influenced McCain.

Mufasa[/quote]

I don’t even know how to respond to this.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

No he hasn’t; no more than Ho Chi Minh influenced McCain.
Mufasa[/quote]

Did this tit for tat drive you nuts. Nice comparison.

I’m really hoping I’m not grasping some larger point you’re making. I really am.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
<<< No he hasn’t; no more than Ho Chi Minh influenced McCain.

Mufasa

I don’t even know how to respond to this.[/quote]

Most POWs in Vietnam (like in most Wars) were continually fed the propaganda of their captors while being tortured.

Last analogy on this topic, because its not going anywhere.

Analogies always fall short, and deter from my central argument; and that’s of comparing the power and influence of some preacher no one knew Jack Shit about until this election to Dixicratic Representatives, Senators, Governors, Mayors and Local Government officials.

Mufasa

I’m getting uncomfortable just thinking about this debate.

I’m all for Palin, but I can see Biden arguing blindly and her flailing about trying to respond…especially when Biden likes to quote people out of context as he did with Clarence Thomas.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
<<< Most POWs in Vietnam (like in most Wars) were continually fed the propaganda of their captors while being tortured.

Mufasa

[/quote]

And the fact of being held against their will in deplorable conditions as well as the torture itself is somehow remotely comparable to a man VOLUNTARILY attending a church for 20 years, being married by the pastor who also baptized their children and naming a book he wrote after one of his sermons?

You somehow find that this association is not indicative of his beliefs? That that association and those of John Mccain to his captors should be mentioned in the same train of thought?

I’m being nice to you man, but it’s almost impossible for me to fit that line of thinking between my ears.

I am not a hysterical right wing nutcase. This man has enthusiastically aligned himself with people and causes that are at odds with and deleterious to this nation and it’s future well being. There is just not a credible way to deny that.

Most POW’s have no choice but to listen to their captors propaganda, Obama was free to get up and leave any time during those 20 years - he chose not to.

I was under the impression that the format of this debate had been changed to a Q&A session with pre-chosen questions?

As for the debate anything could happen and likely will. Palin just needs to SURVIVE and produce some coherent and sensible responses.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Mick28:

I abhor hate from anyone; but you’ve illustrated the “slippery slope” one can get on with “Tit-for-Tat” arguments.

Strom Thurmond (and other segregationist/“Dixie-Crats”) like Jesse Helms, George Wallace, etc. were in positions of Political Power that actually strengthened and supported attitudes, and most importantly LAWS (e.g. the Jim Crow laws and the segregation of schools, public and private facilities, secondary schools and Colleges;

The list goes on and on), that had the direct effect of hurting a lot of people by depriving them of basic rights,(like voting) for may years. (By the way, the Ku Klux Klan was at one time a VERY strong political party, and in later years were often the “muscle” of the “Dixiecrats”).

Wrights vitriolic Bullshit probably hasn’t hurt anyone but the very people he preaches it to; and now Obama, as people continue to bring it up as “Tit-for-Tat” over and over again in this campaign.

Wright means nothing to me, and probably not to you either; except as some “got 'cha” to hang Obama with.

And he sure as hell isn’t keeping people from voting or getting them hung if they do.

Mufasa

[/quote]

Exactly. The fact that people think there is some equivalence between a segregationist power structure that ran a huge chunk of this country less than fifty years ago, and a single left-wing preacher, is absurd.

Wright is a harmless, lone man who has said some offensive things (although I bet 99% of the guys attacking him on this forum have not read his actual remarks in context).

John Hagee, who McCain ACTIVELY courted, indulged in routine anti-Catholic bigotry and cheered on the bombing of civilians, and he is a person of actual power and influence! That is far, far worse than anything Wright said.

There are a thousand good reasons to vote against Obama. Wright is not one of them. Getting hung up on Jeremiah Wright in light of everything else going on is evidence of a serious lack of perspective.

You guys straw-manned me big time, and you know it.

“WTF??? He’s comparing McCain’s time in Vietnam with Obama’s time hanging out with Wright”?

No I wasn’t.

These are my points:

  1. ASSOCIATION does not mean INDOCTRINATION

  2. Comparing the power and influence of some preacher no one knew Jack Shit about until this election to Dixicratic Representatives, Senators, Governors, Mayors and Local Government officials is something that I can’t “fit between my ears” either.

Mufasa

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
You guys straw-manned me big time, and you know it.

“WTF??? He’s comparing McCain’s time in Vietnam with Obama’s time hanging out with Wright”?

No I wasn’t.

These are my points:

  1. ASSOCIATION does not mean INDOCTRINATION

  2. Comparing the power and influence of some preacher no one knew Jack Shit about until this election to Dixicratic Representatives, Senators, Governors, Mayors and Local Government officials is something that I can’t “fit between my ears” either.

Mufasa

[/quote]

I promise you one thing right now. I would not ever straw man anybody intentionally. I hate losing debates though everybody does sometimes. If I have to lose one it won’t be because I knowingly fed myself to somebody with something as banal as a straw man argument.

A 20 year voluntary association does not indicate indoctrination. It indicates alliance. Obama is not some weak minded sponge who Wright shaped into the marxist he is today. He attended his church, had the man perform his marriage and the baptism of his children, named his book after his sermon and refused to denounce him until it became political suicide not to, because they share the same views. It is not possible without lobotomizing yourself to reach any other conclusion.

I know for a fact there are, even predominantly black, orthodox Christian churches in Chicago that are not bastions of marxist liberation theology he could easily have attended if that’s what he believed. He kept himself a part of that community for 2 decades because he shares their radical vision for this country.

Liberation theology is marxist. That is not even debatable. James Cone whom Wright declares publicly with his own lips is his inspiration is a white hating lunatic who thinks God wants them to conquer the white race and somehow gleans that from the Bible.

Wright himself said that Obama is doing what politicians do in disowning him and his church. He knows that Obama knows and embraces his twisted version of reality and that he could not get elected if he let it be widely exposed.

You’re sharper than this man.

Our we talking semantics here, Tirib?

You’ve made it clear that you feel Obama is a white hating Marxist, all because of his association/alliance with Wright.

That sounds like indoctrination of a young man by a charismatic personality.

Again, this will have to be an “agree to disagree”.

Obama, whatever his failings, is not a white hating Marxist.

Mufasa

You may be surprised, but I agree with you Mick!

I’ve always felt that if you cry “racism” (or whatever "-ism!) with every slight, the real egregious cases get overlooked or “Chicken Littled” in people’s minds.

Crying racism because of something said at a dying man’s birthday party was a case in point.

My point was to not compare the rantings of some store front Preacher, virtually unknown to many of you before this election, with the Power, influence and fear that the Dixicrats exercised over people’s lives.

Mufasa