First, you seem to have forgotten what your original statement was. Namely, "if you don't vote McCain/Palin, you are not a real American." You're not even trying to prove that claim, not that you ever could.
Actually, I have just shown you several representatives of the McCain/Palin campaign who pushed this message.
Second, you dump links for what appears to me to be professionally made youtube videos and claim it's not Obama mudslinging?
The Daily Show and Daily Kos are run by Obama? But never mind that. Are you denying the fact wat Palin said?
Third, even this limited claim that McCain/Palin thinks small towns are the "only" "real America" are phony and not backed by the videos you link to.
Really! Care to explain why? Can't wait.
Note that because of the greater funds that Obama has spent (about 3-2 to 2-1 spending advantage, it appears to me), that he probably has run many more negative ads than McCain has.
You ignored this quote:
"Nearly every TV ad Republican John McCain ran last week was negative, compared to just 34 percent of those by Democrat Barack Obama, according to an analysis released Wednesday."
My original point indirectly was that you had not done even a little critical thinking in your first outrageous and cartoonish claim.
You would be wrong, then.
Further, when called out, you morphed that argument into a completely different claim that at least was mildly defensible. This shows either some serious dishonesty or a complete lack of understanding on how to rationally argue.
Now you are just trying to change the subject. I showed you several McCain/Palin representatives who pounded in the "real American" message, and all you could do was to flail wildly and hope no one noticed.
So what is your point? Obama won't get rid of private schools, and you did admit that private schools don't have to deal with all the issues that public schools do.
You are making assumptions about what will improve the quality. Those assumptions are useless without anything to back them up. And you have in no way made a convincing case for why McCain is better than Obama here.
I'm not going to go on record as saying that he's the Affirmitive Action HLR president
He wasn't. Quite the opposite. He picked one single black editor, if I remember correctly. He outraged liberals by picking several conservatives. Everyone expected Obama to push liberals and minorities. He did not. He picked the people who were actually qualified.
I can't say it's completely out of the realm of possibility given that his grades getting into Harvard were well below their standards and his selection to editor was only possible after they removed the academic basis for it.
Not editor. President. Obama was the one who picked the editors!
I voted for him either way, but it doesn't look like this is one of his strong qualities.
Say what? Because he's black you can't believe he did it on his own merits, so you conclude that this is not one of his strong qualities?
McCain wasn't just a little bit worse. He was much worse. "Obama pals around with terrorists", "if you don't vote McCain, you are not a real American", "Obama wants to teach sex to children", etc.
If you were actually paying attention, you would notice that this isn't what McCain and Palin are saying, this is what Obama supporters such as yourself claim they're saying.
Even on BBC World the other day, a McCain representative started talking about "real America". When the Obama representative pointed out the idiocy of claiming that only certain parts of the country are "Real America", the McCain representative blew up and tried to delfect the criticism by changing the subject.
Hence, why I think it's an example of Obama mudslinging rather than the other side.
Wait, so if an Obama supporter says something, Obama is automatically to blame, but if a McCain supporters says something, McCain is completely innocent?
I saw no such evidence on the site. Where is this located?
You say that Nintendo went for a 'better' controller. But in my eyes it isnt better - its the same thing as before just now people have to swing it instead of pressing a button.
That makes it better. It makes it easier and simpler to use.
And I often feel that Nintendo's need to branch out to the other generations results in a lot of poor games that are just advertised well, and fed to the masses rather than the gamers - a smart move from Nintendos profits side of things, but a nasty one for people who actually enjoy good games.
Nintendo's own games this generation have been excellent. And it should be obvious that Nintendo needed to go somewhere else than the other two. They can outspend Nintendo when it comes to gaphics. Graphics aren't all that important. The Wii Remote shows how important the controller is.
I'm fed up of people calling the Wii controls 'better' because theyre different.
They are better because they are simpler and easier to use. They are more accessible to a lot more people.
Excuse me? If you didn't notice, this is what McCain and Palin are saying. How is Obama relevant to the fact that their message is "if you don't vote for us, you are not a real American"?
Where does factcheck.org "confirm" that?
That was just one example of a site which has debunked the claim that Obama gets even close to McCain's mud slinging.
I'll be willing to bet that McCain's are still far more venomous than Obama's. McCain uses this as a strategy. He even admitted it, and threatened Obama that if he didn't do what he was told, McCain would make it even worse.
So are you saying that Obama is opposed to private schools? Is that it? If not, what is your point? My point is simply that you gush over private schools, while ignoring the reality that public schools have to deal with.
When did I say that he's a hypocrite? I merely pointed out that religious dogma are easily discarded by religious people if they don't fit. Evolution is another example of that.
And regardless, Obama is the lesser evil. He actually accepts science.
Similarly, most people find traditional game controllers to be far too confusing and hard to use. When you don't keep up to par with Nintendo's extremely easy to use offering, it's obvious and distracting.
Obama is not a Creationist (where "Creationism" means "Evolution is false"). He acceps Evolution.
You could argue, and I would agree, that Evolution and religion contradict each other, but religious people are very good at ignoring the parts of religion they don't like. They ignore huge parts of their holy books because it doesn't fit into today's modern society.
Sounds even better to me because it sounds like she's in favor of teaching critical thinking
Teaching religious dogma is not "teaching critical thinking". Religion has no place in science class.
If you think science education means always accepting whatever the scientific establishment accepts, then you belong in a priesthood, not science.
Actually, this is exactly where you are wrong. In science class, you teach scientific consensus. Otherwise you would teach flat earth in geology class, alchemy in chemistry class, stork theory in sex education, and so on. There's nothing "priesthood"-like about teaching scientific consensus. If you want to learn about religion and superstition, science class is the wrong place for you. Those belong in history class or something like that.
What's the difference between our tremendously successful college system and private system, and our horrendous public school system?
That the public school system has to deal with everyone, while private schools can pick and choose, and simply throw out students who don't "fit in"? Did you take that into account in your comment?
All I know is that McCain's running mate is against international science research, and is a Young Earth Creationist. She also believes that "sex education" means telling kids not to have sex.
Actually, I believe most of Obama's TV ads are positive, and talk about his message, while McCain mostly spreads lies about Obama. Obama might not be an angel, but he's nothing compared to McCain when it comes to throwing poo.
Obama is slinging the mud as fast or faster then McCain, it's just hte MSM covering for him.
Obama is slinging the mud faster than McCain, except Obama isn't doing the slinging? And yet Obama is slinging more mud? That's a bit of a contradiction there.
McCain is clearly slinging much more mud than Obama. Just lately you have the "Obama paling around with terrorist" speech, and the "if you don't vote McCain/Palin, you are not a real American" nonsense. This is in addition to nonsense like "Obama wants to teach children about sex" and similar lies. Sites like FactCheck.org all confirm that McCain has been far worse than Obama.
And McCain is apoligizing for the ads that are bad and by people he can't contrl.
Is that so? Interesting. When did he apologize for Palin's terrorist remarks? When did he apologize for claiming that Obama wants to teach children about sex?
Slashdot Mirror
One is usually done when one has no arguments left :)
Actually, I have just shown you several representatives of the McCain/Palin campaign who pushed this message.
The Daily Show and Daily Kos are run by Obama? But never mind that. Are you denying the fact wat Palin said?
Really! Care to explain why? Can't wait.
You ignored this quote:
"Nearly every TV ad Republican John McCain ran last week was negative, compared to just 34 percent of those by Democrat Barack Obama, according to an analysis released Wednesday."
You would be wrong, then.
Now you are just trying to change the subject. I showed you several McCain/Palin representatives who pounded in the "real American" message, and all you could do was to flail wildly and hope no one noticed.
It's interesting how you ignore the points I'm making and try to change the subject.
No, it's better. It's more intuitive, easier to use and extremely versatile.
That's the thing. You don't have to learn all those buttons. It's far more intuitive.
Now I know you must be trolling :)
So what is your point? Obama won't get rid of private schools, and you did admit that private schools don't have to deal with all the issues that public schools do.
You are making assumptions about what will improve the quality. Those assumptions are useless without anything to back them up. And you have in no way made a convincing case for why McCain is better than Obama here.
He wasn't. Quite the opposite. He picked one single black editor, if I remember correctly. He outraged liberals by picking several conservatives. Everyone expected Obama to push liberals and minorities. He did not. He picked the people who were actually qualified.
Not editor. President. Obama was the one who picked the editors!
Say what? Because he's black you can't believe he did it on his own merits, so you conclude that this is not one of his strong qualities?
Amazing.
McCain wasn't just a little bit worse. He was much worse. "Obama pals around with terrorists", "if you don't vote McCain, you are not a real American", "Obama wants to teach sex to children", etc.
Wait, are you denying the fact that Palin and McCain have been talking about how only certain parts of America are the real America? This is just one example of a message the McCain campaign has been trying to pound in. Spokespeople for McCain/Palin kept going on and on and on about it as well. It's not like this hasn't been brought up or anything.
Even on BBC World the other day, a McCain representative started talking about "real America". When the Obama representative pointed out the idiocy of claiming that only certain parts of the country are "Real America", the McCain representative blew up and tried to delfect the criticism by changing the subject.
Wait, so if an Obama supporter says something, Obama is automatically to blame, but if a McCain supporters says something, McCain is completely innocent?
Ever heard about Google? Random search result.
You don't understand the desire to keep things honest? Figures.
No, mud slinging clouds the issue and moves the focus away from politics, and over to lies and deception.
What problems? McCain has more problems than Obama, considering the fact that he is just about a carbon copy of Bush in 2008. Same team, same tactics.
That makes it better. It makes it easier and simpler to use.
Nintendo's own games this generation have been excellent. And it should be obvious that Nintendo needed to go somewhere else than the other two. They can outspend Nintendo when it comes to gaphics. Graphics aren't all that important. The Wii Remote shows how important the controller is.
They are better because they are simpler and easier to use. They are more accessible to a lot more people.
Excuse me? If you didn't notice, this is what McCain and Palin are saying. How is Obama relevant to the fact that their message is "if you don't vote for us, you are not a real American"?
That was just one example of a site which has debunked the claim that Obama gets even close to McCain's mud slinging.
I see. So basically, he ended up at Harvard because he did poorly, and when he did even worse, he became president of the HLR?
Because he was president of the HLR, not just an editor.
I'll be willing to bet that McCain's are still far more venomous than Obama's. McCain uses this as a strategy. He even admitted it, and threatened Obama that if he didn't do what he was told, McCain would make it even worse.
So are you saying that Obama is opposed to private schools? Is that it? If not, what is your point? My point is simply that you gush over private schools, while ignoring the reality that public schools have to deal with.
Which basically means that your argument falls apart.
And regardless, Obama is the lesser evil. He actually accepts science.
Correction: President of the Harvard Law Review. Not "just" an editor, in other words.
Similarly, most people find traditional game controllers to be far too confusing and hard to use. When you don't keep up to par with Nintendo's extremely easy to use offering, it's obvious and distracting.
Obama is not a Creationist (where "Creationism" means "Evolution is false"). He acceps Evolution.
You could argue, and I would agree, that Evolution and religion contradict each other, but religious people are very good at ignoring the parts of religion they don't like. They ignore huge parts of their holy books because it doesn't fit into today's modern society.
Teaching religious dogma is not "teaching critical thinking". Religion has no place in science class.
Actually, this is exactly where you are wrong. In science class, you teach scientific consensus. Otherwise you would teach flat earth in geology class, alchemy in chemistry class, stork theory in sex education, and so on. There's nothing "priesthood"-like about teaching scientific consensus. If you want to learn about religion and superstition, science class is the wrong place for you. Those belong in history class or something like that.
That the public school system has to deal with everyone, while private schools can pick and choose, and simply throw out students who don't "fit in"? Did you take that into account in your comment?
All I know is that McCain's running mate is against international science research, and is a Young Earth Creationist. She also believes that "sex education" means telling kids not to have sex.
You are missing the point. The context of "teaching Creationism" is not "teach how wrong it is", but "teach it as science".
We know that Obama went to Harvard, and became editor of the Harvard Law Review. Yeah, he's really hiding this stuff so well... :)
Actually, I believe most of Obama's TV ads are positive, and talk about his message, while McCain mostly spreads lies about Obama. Obama might not be an angel, but he's nothing compared to McCain when it comes to throwing poo.
So what did you learn in those home schools? Were they religious in nature? Did you learn about Evolution or Creationism?
Obama is slinging the mud faster than McCain, except Obama isn't doing the slinging? And yet Obama is slinging more mud? That's a bit of a contradiction there.
McCain is clearly slinging much more mud than Obama. Just lately you have the "Obama paling around with terrorist" speech, and the "if you don't vote McCain/Palin, you are not a real American" nonsense. This is in addition to nonsense like "Obama wants to teach children about sex" and similar lies. Sites like FactCheck.org all confirm that McCain has been far worse than Obama.
Is that so? Interesting. When did he apologize for Palin's terrorist remarks? When did he apologize for claiming that Obama wants to teach children about sex?