Redskins Diehard Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 i am the mole.its a complicated strategy of pretending to be a conservative and flinging non-sensical poo at the wall knowing that none of it will stick. then after none of it sticks i will say "ha ha republicans you fling poo because thats all you have for ammo." and this is where my intricate strategy culminates into get obama into office: while all the conservatives are busily reading the poos like a shaman with some chicken bones all the liberals will sneak to the voting boths and vote for obama. mccain will never see it coming. it will be a sneak vote! Maybe your strategy is to keep putting out issues to ensure the maniacal internet supporters don't lose interest. That certainly appears to be happening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpyaks3 Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 1) Why do you keep calling this a "rumor"? It seems that it is a pretty solid story based on some pretty solid facts2) Is the only issue that you have with what I said that you haven't found the mole yet? Lets go with unsubtantiated speculation instead of rumor. There is not a shred of evidence that Obama did anything even remotely wrong in recieving this mortgage, it is exactly the kind of mortgage you would expect someone with his financial situation to recieve, and yet Stephens tries to insinuate that Obama has recieved preferential treatment through shoddy reporting. I dont think stories like this are being perpetuated by the Mccain camp, I think its just terrible reporting which is all the media seems to be able to do this election cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 this is almost as bad as him not wearing a flag pin :doh: It's worse in many respects actually. But it does take fiscal responsibility off the table for Republicans once again. I mean heck if they won't even try to negotiate for a lower loan for their own homes... then again, it totally explains their pharmaceutical legislation where they denied medicaid the right to negotiate lower prices on drugs and services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Lets go with unsubtantiated speculation instead of rumor. There is not a shred of evidence that Obama did anything even remotely wrong in recieving this mortgage, it is exactly the kind of mortgage you would expect someone with his financial situation to recieve, and yet Stephens tries to insinuate that Obama has recieved preferential treatment through shoddy reporting. I dont think stories like this are being perpetuated by the Mccain camp, I think its just terrible reporting which is all the media seems to be able to do this election cycle. Did Stephens even insinuate that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Or people against Obama could be perpetuating these stories to distract us from the issues.It's something you might want to consider as well. The two "distractions" that I brought up "birth certificate" and "selective service registration" are questions of eligibility to hold office. They aren't technically "distractions", because they are legitimate for anyone holding office. Everyone who wants to be President should provide this proof. I've said all along that it is to Barack Obama's benefit to keep the "distractions" rolling and he has done everything in his power to perpetuate the "distractions". His surrogates even orchestrate an attack that belittles McCain's military service ("riding in a plane and getting shot down"... Wes, it's called "flying") and his "moderated un-moderated" Blogs call McCain a war-criminal... He is a walking machine of gaffes and distractions, then blames everyone else for the "distraction". This "home loan" situation isn't really news... Unless someone can prove that he got a break specifically because of his political power and he turned around and used his influence to help NT or its officers. It's not worth diving into... The Clintons got away with far worse 16 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpyaks3 Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Did Stephens even insinuate that? I believe he insinuated that he got some special treatment, otherwise why write the article? I dont see McCains mortgage's on any of his homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 The two "distractions" that I brought up "birth certificate" and "selective service registration" are questions of eligibility to hold office. They aren't technically "distractions", because they are legitimate for anyone holding office. Everyone who wants to be President should provide this proof. Answer this for me..."Why have you not heard about other candidates being asked to prove if they were a U.S. citizen or if they have registered for selective services? Wouldn't you assume anyone running for the highest office in the land was a citizen? IMO, the bigger issue is why is Obama being asked these questions? I'm really curious as to how you respond.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpyaks3 Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Answer this for me..."Why have you not heard about other candidates being asked to prove if they were a U.S. citizen or if they have registered for selective services?Wouldn't you assume anyone running for the highest office in the land was a citizen? IMO, the bigger issue is why is Obama being asked these questions? I'm really curious as to how you respond.... I dont really understand the birth certificate thing, does anyone really believe that something like that wouldnt be checked when he won a senate seat or when he declared his candidacy for President, you think the democratic party would have liked to know if a potential candidate would be able to legally hold the office he is running for. In reality its just another cheap way to attempt to smear him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Answer this for me..."Why have you not heard about other candidates being asked to prove if they were a U.S. citizen or if they have registered for selective services?Wouldn't you assume anyone running for the highest office in the land was a citizen? IMO, the bigger issue is why is Obama being asked these questions? I'm really curious as to how you respond.... Wasn't there discussion about whether or not McCain was eligible since he was born in Panama? I seem to remember that discussion. The matter of being a citizenship is not an accurate description of this scenario since naturalized citizens are not eligible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Answer this for me..."Why have you not heard about other candidates being asked to prove if they were a U.S. citizen or if they have registered for selective services?Wouldn't you assume anyone running for the highest office in the land was a citizen? IMO, the bigger issue is why is Obama being asked these questions? I'm really curious as to how you respond.... It was a valid question prior to him producing a "Certification of Live Birth". Even McCain was questioned on this issue because he was born in Panama... So don't pretend it's only Barack Obama who has been asked this question. George W Bush provided his registration number for Selective Service. These are questions that all candidates should answer, not just Barack Obama. Barack Obama's childhood (spent predominantly in foreign countries) is one reason that people are double-checking to make sure he answers these questions. This is why those two questions are not distractions, because they are questions of eligibility. As DJTJ said in another thread, there may be a legal challenge to the Selective Service requirement... However, there is nothing wrong in asking these questions. You can't take any other position unless you are completely in the tank for your candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 The matter of being a citizenship is not an accurate description of this scenario since naturalized citizens are not eligible. Correct! Thanks for clarifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 It was a valid question prior to him producing a "Certification of Live Birth". Even McCain was questioned on this issue because he was born in Panama... So don't pretend it's only Barack Obama who has been asked this question. George W Bush provided his registration number for Selective Service. These are questions that all candidates should answer, not just Barack Obama. Barack Obama's childhood (spent predominantly in foreign countries) is one reason that people are double-checking to make sure he answers these questions.This is why those two questions are not distractions, because they are questions of eligibility. As DJTJ said in another thread, there may be a legal challenge to the Selective Service requirement... However, there is nothing wrong in asking these questions. You can't take any other position unless you are completely in the tank for your candidate. I can see you aren't grasping my point...but whatever.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I can see you aren't grasping my point...but whatever.... No sweat... it wouldn't be the first time I didn't grasp what someone else was saying. Regardless, the thread is about this discount on a home loan... I think it's much ado about nothing. I'd like to see less talk of "distractions", because I believe the "distractions" favor Barack Obama. Unless of course, someone brings forward some crazy "whitey tape". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Wasn't there discussion about whether or not McCain was eligible since he was born in Panama? I seem to remember that discussion.The matter of being a citizenship is not an accurate description of this scenario since naturalized citizens are not eligible. I suppose I'm a little biased, but I participated in the Panama discussion, as I have in the recent Obama threads, and I really think the tone was different on the McCain issue than it is here ... We had a pretty academic discussion about McCain, and people on both sides didn't get too defensive. Also, nobody ever demanded that the McCain campaign answer the question - we did our own research, reached a conclusion, and everyone left the thread generally agreeing that it wasn't a problem.http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=239941 Somehow, with the Obama threads, the discussion gets really heated, nobody believes what anyone else says, and at the end, nobody agrees on anything, and the critics will not accept any explanation unless it comes directly from the Obama campaign. http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=250485 http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249002 I think part of it has to do with the fact that people are just a lot more passionate about both attacking and defending Obama. Most people are pretty ambivalent about McCain, but with Obama everything is life or death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Somehow, with the Obama threads, the discussion gets really heated, nobody believes what anyone else says, and at the end, nobody agrees on anything, and the critics will not accept any explanation unless it comes directly from the Obama campaign. Actually, we have quite a few who won't believe it even if the Obama camp addresses it and refutes it. I remember a thread a little while back where we linked Obama saying that he never was and never has been a Muslim. There were a few posters in that thread who called him a liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins0756 Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 The Post made a negative comment about a Democratic presidential candidate :yikes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 The Post made a negative comment about a Democratic presidential candidate :yikes: The WaPo isn't anywhere close to being as liberal as most conservatives want it to be. Its one of the most respected papers in the country, and has definitely moved more towards the center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 The Post made a negative comment about a Democratic presidential candidate :yikes: Quite a few lately.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Somehow, with the Obama threads, the discussion gets really heated, nobody believes what anyone else says, and at the end, nobody agrees on anything, and the critics will not accept any explanation unless it comes directly from the Obama campaign. I think part of it has to do with the fact that people are just a lot more passionate about both attacking and defending Obama. Most people are pretty ambivalent about McCain, but with Obama everything is life or death. I agree 100%. The attack and defend dogs are very involved in Obama threads. I am still pretty benign with Obama. I think the extreme attackers and defenders do more harm than good for their cause. At least with me they do. Maybe my final assessment will be determined by which side tones it down first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.