McCain on TV: Video: Just saw this on TV. MUST SEE!

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Is Obama and the rest of the dems out there denouncing the extremist leftists that call the republican party "warmongers"?

Is there a difference between denouncing opinion and correcting a falsehood? McCain's problem is that his campaign has whipped up an unprecedented level of rhetorical violence in some of these crowds. A Democratic blogger calling the GOP warmongers and a Republican presidential candidate letting death threats go by unchallenged are hardly morally equivalent.

That said, the Republicans should have been destroying Obama based on his socialist ideas.

The problem with that is the American public seems to quite like those ideas, especially since free market nonsense has proven so destructive recently. It'll swing back around eventually. Always does.
 
That women and people like her are a disgrace... She said she's read about him... Where exactly??? "KKK Weekly"? I don't understand Racism. And he's not even Arab decent...
 
Jonas Brothers? How about the Dead.

GRATEFUL DEAD PLAY TO SUPPORT OBAMA
from https://ktvo.com/entertainment/story.aspx?id=206475

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (AP) -- You don't usually think of The Grateful Dead as a political bunch. But there the veteran rock band was, performing in a basketball arena in support of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Four surviving members of the group performed on the Penn State University campus in front of 15,000 last night. Bob Weir, Phil Lesh and Mickey Hart had already played together in support of Obama back in February. They were joined last night by Bill Kreutzmann. It's their first show together since their 2004 reunion tour. Hart says he believes in Obama enough for him to get up in front of Deadheads and declare his support -- and he says that's something the group doesn't take lightly. His message to fans: "Get your butt out of bed and get to the polls."

Any Deadheads on the Freaks board?
 
That women and people like her are a disgrace... She said she's read about him... Where exactly??? "KKK Weekly"? I don't understand Racism. And he's not even Arab decent...

This is something that bugs me. Why are republicans continually painted as racists and dem's as the champions of the blacks - when the KKK was founded by DEMOCRATS ?

From the history channel:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/D5_1yRVtey8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/D5_1yRVtey8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

Historian Eric Foner observed:

In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.[16]

To that end they worked to curb the education, economic advancement, voting rights, and right to keep and bear arms of blacks.[16] The Ku Klux Klan soon spread into nearly every southern state, launching a "reign of terror" against Republican leaders both black and white. Those political leaders assassinated during the campaign included Arkansas Congressman James M. Hinds, three members of the South Carolina legislature, and several men who served in constitutional conventions."[17]

from wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

Robert Carlyle Byrd (born November 20, 1917) is the senior United States Senator from West Virginia and a member of the Democratic Party. Byrd has held the office since January 3, 1959. He has served as a Senator for 285 days, making him the longest-serving member in the Senate's history. He is also the oldest current member of the United States Congress.

Byrd is President pro tempore of the United States Senate of the 110th United States Congress, a position that puts him third in line of presidential succession, behind Vice President ^^^^ Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He also held this post previously from 1989–1995, briefly in January 2001, and from June 2001 – January 2003. In this role, Sen. Byrd signs every Bill passed by Congress before it is sent to the president to be signed into law or vetoed.

He also previously held many leadership positions: Senate Conference Secretary, Majority Whip and twice Majority Leader. He is the only former party leader currently in the Senate.

Participation in the Ku Klux Klan

Byrd joined the Ku Klux Klan when he was twenty four in 1942. His local chapter unanimously elected him Exalted Cyclops.[4]

According to Byrd, a Klan official told him, "You have a talent for leadership, Bob... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation." Byrd later recalled, "suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did."[4] Byrd held the titles Kleagle (recruiter) and Exalted Cyclops.[4]

When Byrd was twenty eight years old, he wrote about the 1945 racial integration of the military to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo:

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a ***** by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.
—Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944 [5][6]


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/UzfK7AWx6_s&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/UzfK7AWx6_s&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
This is something that bugs me. Why are republicans continually painted as racists and dem's as the champions of the blacks - when the KKK was founded by DEMOCRATS ?

Speaking very generally - the two parties switched sides of the political spectrum in the early 20th Century. Abraham Lincoln was a liberal. It's a bit nonsensical to speak of either party as a single continuous entity throughout history.
 
Care to back that up with some evidence?

They didn't go over this in your high school US history class (genuine question, not a quip)? You can find a very basic summary in the "history" section of each party on Wikipedia. It's fascinating stuff (for example African Americans were generally Republicans until the 1930s). Politics makes for strange bedfellows and the history of the two parties is intriguing stuff (for example Republicans embraced progressive tariffs and pluralist economics in the 19th Century, something you'd rarely hear a conservative defend today).

There are some common strands that stretch back through the history of the parties but in very general terms they've morphed and swapped across history. The two parties start to take on their modern forms around Prohibition and the Depression and solidified recognizably into their current left/right divide after WW2 and into the civil rights era.

But in short it's foolish when the parties hold up well known figures from the 1800s as on "their side" due to party affiliation because in many cases they'd actually be with the opposite party today. Or more likely not recognize either of them!

Parties suck.
 
A 19th century liberal was not a populist/progressive. They were 'classical liberals' who advocated small government and laissez-faire economics.

In that sense, Republicans were not much different from Democrats. Democrats had a better reputation going back through Jackson and Jefferson, but that pretty much went to hell by the time Woodrow Wilson was elected. The Republicans were useless at that point as well. Some tried to bring the country back towards the liberal ideals of the 1890's, which they had betrayed with laws such as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (incidentally, Bush was more aggressive with this than Clinton--the more things change...) but for the most part, they were just as enamored with the controls that had infested the economy over the first decades of the 20th century, and which ultimately brought down the stock market in 1929.
 
I gotta tell you guys that as a non-American, this whole election is probably one of the more interesting things to follow on TV these days.

My first exposure to John McCain was when he guested on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart a few years back. At the time, I found him to be a very reasonable, articulate and decent man and was kinda shocked to learn he was on the Republican side (8 years of Dubya sorta soured a lot of people against that particular party).

But the John McCain I've seen since his nomination is radically different, from my perspective. I suspect that he's allowing the Karl Roves and/or other Republican strategists to dictate the nature of his campaign, from the negative attacks to the appointment of Sarah Palin as his VP nominee (obviously trying to curry favour with all the Dems who supported Hillary Clinton), and is just now realizing that he should have run his own campaign, rather than towing the party line. Unfortunately for him, it appears to be too little, too late (again, from the perspective of a non-citizen).

As for the townhall meetings, some of the blame definitely rests on the media bias that seems to be more blatant than ever before. Seriously, how can some of these anchors sleep at night, especially after spouting such outright lies (the "terrorist fist bump" comes instantly to mind)? If anything, I blame the media for "feeding the bears", so to speak, and creating this us-versus-them mentality that results in shouts of "kill him" and "terrorist" from the rhetoric-challenged.

It's really too bad, as in pretty much any other election I think he'd have been a shoe-in. I kinda feel sorry for the guy.
 
I gotta tell you guys that as a non-American, this whole election is probably one of the more interesting things to follow on TV these days.

My first exposure to John McCain was when he guested on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart a few years back. At the time, I found him to be a very reasonable, articulate and decent man and was kinda shocked to learn he was on the Republican side (8 years of Dubya sorta soured a lot of people against that particular party).

But the John McCain I've seen since his nomination is radically different, from my perspective. I suspect that he's allowing the Karl Roves and/or other Republican strategists to dictate the nature of his campaign, from the negative attacks to the appointment of Sarah Palin as his VP nominee (obviously trying to curry favour with all the Dems who supported Hillary Clinton), and is just now realizing that he should have run his own campaign, rather than towing the party line. Unfortunately for him, it appears to be too little, too late (again, from the perspective of a non-citizen).

As for the townhall meetings, some of the blame definitely rests on the media bias that seems to be more blatant than ever before. Seriously, how can some of these anchors sleep at night, especially after spouting such outright lies (the "terrorist fist bump" comes instantly to mind)? If anything, I blame the media for "feeding the bears", so to speak, and creating this us-versus-them mentality that results in shouts of "kill him" and "terrorist" from the rhetoric-challenged.

It's really too bad, as in pretty much any other election I think he'd have been a shoe-in. I kinda feel sorry for the guy.

Thanks for your interesping perspective! My thoughts exactly. McCain is not the same man he was in 2000. What do you think of Barack Obama? All major polls reveal he has large global support.
 
Obama impresses the hell out of pretty much everyone I've spoken to. A lot of his social policies are either already in place up here (universal health care, for example), or policies we would like to adopt. The man is eloquent and obviously very intelligent. I have no doubt he would have won our recent federal elections by a landslide had he been a candidate.

As it is, we re-elected our version of Dubya with yet another minority government, but it's not like the other political parties fielded any inspiring candidates. And that's with 5 major political parties and a number of smaller ones. I would have loved to see Bush's head explode had the Marijuana Party won our elections...
 
Obama impresses the hell out of pretty much everyone I've spoken to. A lot of his social policies are either already in place up here (universal health care, for example), or policies we would like to adopt.

This is one of the things I find so funny about the more hysterical Rush types. In a global context the Democrats are a center right party. These people would wet their pants if real liberals ran.
 
This is the latest funny and innocent McCain gaffe. I feel bad for him in this video hehe.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/QnE-YJ---GI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/QnE-YJ---GI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
Back
Top