Book of Oppositions | Pocket Full of Mumbles |

 

This world is one big game of "Go"-- Black against White, Light against Darkness --and we all have a choice to make: Do we war FOR the Light?

...or against it?




The Barack Obama Pop Quiz

by Edward L. Daley
Published originally at EtherZone.com


1) Cite one of Barack Obama's legislative accomplishments since he became a U.S. Senator.

2) Describe the tactics Barack Obama has employed during this election cycle which have inspired hope and unity among Americans in general, or that constitute a genuine change in Democrat political campaign strategy.

3) What exactly are Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials?

4) Name one person closely associated with Barack Obama (other than a member of his family or fellow legislator) who isn't either an anti-American zealot, a racist, a hard-line Democrat party hack, a terrorist, a communist or a felon.

5) Explain how Barack Obama's tax proposals will punish only wealthy Americans, and not the middle class and poor people who work for them, buy goods and services from them, rent property from them or own stock in their companies.

6) Describe Barack Obama's moral stance on partial birth abortion.

7) Name one organization Barack Obama has been involved with in his adult life (aside from the Illinois or U.S. Senate) that is inherently pro-American or pro-capitalist.

8-A) In what way does Barack Obama's claim that "health care is a right" differ from the following claims?

* Food is a right.
* Clothing is a right.
* Housing is a right.

8-B) If your answer to the above question was that these things are all essential to a long and healthy life, and therefore, there is no substantive difference between them, why then shouldn't the federal government be allowed to exercise the same kind of control over how farmers, tailors and carpenters conduct their businesses that Mr. Obama proposes it exercise over the medical profession?

9) Explain precisely what Barack Obama did as a community organizer in Illinois, and how his activities in this regard enhance his qualifications for the office of President of the United States.

10) Name one foreign terrorist group, terrorist-supporting regime or communist dictatorship (which has made its preference known) that supports John McCain's presidential bid over Barack Obama's.

11) How do Barack Obama's views concerning the regulation and manipulation of financial institutions by the federal government differ from those of his economic adviser, Franklin Raines, who is as responsible as anyone for the recent sub-prime mortgage market collapse?

12) Define the word 'socialist' and explain why Barack Obama isn't one.


posted by Eric Ashley @ 5:22 PM,

122 Comments:

On October 5, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

1. Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 – coauthored by John McCain
2. Obama has tried to not engage in the politics of personal destruction; instead, he has campaigned mostly on issues. His criticisms of McCain have been largely criticisms of McCain’s positions on issues, not criticisms of McCain, the man.

When he HAS criticized McCain, the man, it has been based on flaws that would affect his leadership of our great country (ie, he has rightly charged, seems to many of us, that McCain is out of touch with regular people and regular problems and that is a problem in this economy where regular people NEED someone to understand their very real problems).

Additionally, he has engaged in grassroots campaigning, getting out the vote, challenging people who have not been engaged in the political process. This is a HUGE accomplishment of Obama’s.

3. Obama’s foreign policy credentials, in terms of what he has already done, are quite frankly on the light side. Not as light as Palin, but still pretty light. Nonetheless, he has clearly outlined strategies that it appears most people think are a good change from the policies of Bush. Obama has shown that an Obama presidency will result in a less arrogant and more law-abiding, cooperative US – the US that the world loves.
4. Michelle Obama
5. Reverend Jeremiah Wright
6. I reckon you’d have to get Obama to do that; his LEGAL position is that abortion is a medical procedure best decided by the people involved, not the state
7. ACORN is, from all appearances, a soundly and profoundly pro-American organization, in the best sense of the word
8. I don’t believe Obama is trying to exert any governmental “control” over the medical profession – he’s trying to find ways to fund health care that would be managed by individuals and their free market doctors, but maybe I don’t know enough to say that for sure – in what way is Obama trying to “control” the medical profession?
9. Community organizing ideals are some of the best practices in the best traditions of our democracy; grass-roots, bottom-up democracy is one thing our nation desperately needs
10. Why would I care what a terrorist organization thinks?
11. I do not know enough to respond to this question
12. socialist: One who supports a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Obama does NOT advocate “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole,” therefore, Obama is not a socialist, by definition

 
On October 5, 2008 at 12:13 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Sorry, my number 5 answer should have been number 4 and my number 5 answer is:

5. Explain how Barack Obama's tax proposals will punish only wealthy Americans, and not the middle class and poor people who work for them

Obama's tax proposals won't "punish" anyone. They'll give those who've benefited the most out of our republic the civic opportunity to reinvest back into the community which will, in turn, continue to benefit them.

 
On October 5, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Anonymous Bubba said...

Dan:

As I pointed out here, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 didn't just have Obama and McCain as co-sponsors. The bill had forty-seven co-sponsors, in a Senate of 100 members.

The bill was so non-controversial that it passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and it passed the House by voice vote.

If you want to highlight this as the most impressive thing Obama has done in the Senate, you demonstrate how truly unimpressive his resume is.


It is simply not true that Obama "has tried to not engage in the politics of personal destruction." As Rich Lowry has summarized, Obama has repeatedly tried to play the race card pre-emptively -- that is to say, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, Obama has repeatedly suggested that his political opponents will (future-tense) make his race an issue.


It seems to me that Michelle Obama has a gigantic chip on her shoulder regarding this country, but if you think she doesn't harbor any animosity toward this country, and if you furthermore think that ACORN is "soundly and profoundly pro-American," I'm not sure what possible evidence could be produced to convince you to believe otherwise.


About foreign policy, I find interesting how quickly you pivot on the question of foreign opinion.

On the one hand, you think an Obama administration would result in "the US that the world loves." But then, in the same comment, you disregard as unimportant the idea that our terrorist enemies might prefer seeing one candidate elected over another:

"Why would I care what a terrorist organization thinks?"

Let's see: if Europe thinks America would become more modest and humble with an Obama victory, that's good. But if Hamas and al Queda thinks America would become an easier target, that's... irrelevant? Really?


Finally, about the meanings of words, we recently discussed whether Barack Obama is a capitalist, and you insisted that he is by appealing to the broadest possible definition of the term -- that is, a belief in the private ownership of property.

As I pointed out then, your use of term is too broad to be useful. Here, it appears that your use of capitalism's opposite -- socialism -- is too narrow to be useful.

In that earlier conversation, I asked for you to provide terms that would be more useful to the discussion of the differences of opinion in terms of American economics:

Using your definition [of capitalism], the vast majority of Americans are capitalists because they believe in private ownership of property. But the definition doesn't distinguish between those who support price controls and those who don't; those who support nationalizing a sector (or three) of the economy and those who don't.

In other words, the definition doesn't give any good indication of what the citizen or politician believes in terms of economic policy.

If you think most Americans are on one side of the divide between capitalists and socialists, simply because of agreement on property ownership, there are other terms to partition us into two broad groups, which is useful because politically Americans DO diverge into two broad groups: fiscal libertarians and progressives, individualists and collectivists, free-marketers and regulators.

What term would you use to describe Obama's position more precisely?


You didn't answer that question then. If you're going to insist on using definitions of capitalism and socialism that are so broad (or narrow) that they're useless, I will ask you again to provide more useful terminology.


And, for that matter, I do wonder: if you really believe that we're all capitalists, why did you recently ask this question, regarding the bank bailout?

"Can anyone explain this to someone like me who is not a part of the capitalist religion?"

What in the world do you mean by this, if all you ever mean by capitalism is the belief in the private ownership of property?

It's a strange question in light of that particular definition.

 
On October 5, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Blogger Edwin Drood said...

Dan,

So you can overlook Obama taking money from Fanny/Freddie, basically selling his vote.

Perhaps you should review some of your previous posts:

http://tinyurl.com/4rth2a

His position is not perfect but he's at least saying some of the right things. I saw one commercial for Obama this week where he noted that he's not taking money from the oil industry so as not to be indebted to them (unlike some current and past administrations).

So I guess Oil Companies are bad but loan sharks are good.


source:
http://tinyurl.com/3pomjs

 
On October 5, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Blogger Edwin Drood said...

oh yeah on a report listing recipients of Fannie and Freddie's donations this was said:

Sen. Obama has received $105,849 from donors tied to the companies since he ran for the senate four years ago, making him the third-largest recipient in Congress among the top 25 listed in a recent report by the Center for Responsive Politics, which examined contributions dating to 1989.

. . .

Sen. McCain wasn't listed in the report, and proponents of overhaul say lobbyists have tried unsuccessfully to win him over.

source:
http://tinyurl.com/4rth2a


the point is, Obama voted against regulating them thus allowing them to prey on the uneducated (mostly democrats) Maybe he was indebted to them.

 
On October 5, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

So you can overlook Obama taking money from Fanny/Freddie, basically selling his vote.

As I have said multiple times: Obama is a politician and, like ALL politicians, we must keep an eye on his actions and his alliances.

Having said that, I have fewer problems (while I still have them) with Obama than I do with McCain's allegiances and connections and donors.

 
On October 6, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Blogger ELAshley said...

Obama consorts with a known unrepentant terrorist and you have less of a problem with Obama than McCain?

This is exactly why there should be mental qualifications for voting.

But let's go over your answers, Dan.

1) Obama has authored nothing of note as a U.S. Senator.

2) Obama has threatened television stations with lawsuits and threats of FCC investigations because he didn't like some of the McCain ads they were running. His so-called "truth squads". This is just one of the very same tactics he used to gain his Illinois seat.

3) Obama has NO foreign policy credentials. NONE. He made a trip to Iraq 3 years late. Made a nonsensical speech in Berlin. And dissed American wounded because he couldn't bring a camera crew. Foreign policy credentials? Nonexistent.

4) Jeremiah Wright? Racist, Blasphemous, and with little genuine biblical understanding? THAT Jeremiah Wright? Is THAT'S all you got?

5) Barack Obama intends to impose 800 billion in additional taxes on the American people, ON TOP OF the 700 billion bailout. That adds up to 1.5 Trillion levied upon the citizens of the United States. And you think this won't impact EVERY American? You obviously don't understand economics.

6) "his LEGAL position is that abortion is a medical procedure best decided by the people involved, not the state."

And yet the esteemed Barack Obama voted against giving "the people involved" the legal right to save the lives of survivors of abortion. Are we to assume he believes society incurs NO responsibility for the heinous and barbaric practice of partial birth abortion? If he won't even vote to save the ones who survive "normal" abortions, are we to assume he would care more for those which are TRULY viable, feeling, sentient human children? Do he think these children don't feel the scissors being thrust into their skulls? You do know that many proponents of this evil practice believe these children don't feel pain, don't you? Do we really want a man sitting in the offal office who supports this hideous procedure? That you do STILL, to this day, gives me great reason to question your faith. AND HIS! ["Give me reason" I said, but that's not what I'm doing here... I'm merely expressing my thought process on this issue.]

7) ACORN is guilty of voter fraud. A group connected to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac [receiving funds from... Just like Barack Obama].

8) "in what way is Obama trying to "control" the medical profession?"

Suppose you're a carpenter. Your work is excellent and highly prized. Suppose the government came to your establishment and told you you had to start selling you services at a "fair" government-controlled price? Now suppose you're a doctor who has spent 8-10 years in school, racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans, and now the government sidles up to you and informs you that you will not be allowed to perform your skills at the once-going rate because Barack Obama wants to give everyone "affordable" healthcare? Is government going to help you pay off your student loans?

Where in the Constitution is there a right to affordable healthcare? For that matter, where in the Constitution is the clause that gives government the right to determine the individual worth of your skills?

9) I can't disagree with your answer here except to say you didn't answer the question.

It is community organizers who forced government to force banks to lend to people who could not afford the homes they bought. We are where we are today because of the meddling of community organizers into an economic system they did not understand. Add to that the corrupt politicians within the Democratic party and their cronies siphoning off funds from Fannie and Freddie, then insisting the two were financially sound as recent as June of this year, and you end up with a 700 billion plus tax bill levied upon the American people... and Barack wants to add another 800 billion in new spending on top of it!

10) I agree with Bubba on this: You are too deeply concerned about what our allies and other nations of the world thinks of the United States, but then you ask 'why should I care what terrorists think?' Wholly inconsistent of you, Dan. Especially since you can't properly identify who is and who is not a "rogue nation".

11) Easy answer.... They don't. If they did mightn't Barack have refused gifts and donations from Fannie and Freddie, being concerned for the solvency of both Fannie and Freddie and the financial risk to both the American economy and the taxpayers? Mightn't he have vociferously argued for oversight?

12) In the strictest sense it's not so easy to pin Obama with the label 'Socialist' but his policies on capital-gains taxes, new federal spending, and massive expansion of regulatory and bureaucratic management lean heavily in that direction... to say nothing of putting the figurative gun to every doctors head in America and telling them they MUST sell their services at a government mandated price. Obama may not be a Bernie Sanders Socialist, but his proposals rely heavily on the same philosophy. [h/t HotAir.com]

 
On October 6, 2008 at 5:50 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Then don't vote for him.

I, obviously, disagree with most of your analyses.

I suspect that you are in the minority. Sorry.

 
On October 6, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have yet to hear of any just normal people that Obama is friends with. Why would one pick the types of friends Obama has. Has everything only been about politics for his entire life? Power hungry? Why? I don't think his desire is to help the poor or he could give away all those Millions that he is collecting in donations, a lot of which I hope are tracked down, identified and made public. I hope Dan is ready to accept the consequences of an Obama presidency and I hope he will come on the internet and rant like he has about Bush if Obama turns out like I think he will. mom2

 
On October 6, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

How many "normal" people is McCain friends with?

I don't know who McCain or Obama has as pals. Nor do I know their contacts and associates, except in a few cases as reported by the media. In that regard, the media has mostly reported only on Obama's supposedly unsavory associates.

To be sure, if the media were being more even-handed, we'd be hearing about weird pastors and rightwing nutsos who are somehow associated with or endorsing McCain, but that hasn't happened too much.

But what of it?

I'm much more interested in what their policy positions and planks are. McCain and his supporters seem to be focusing on Obama rather than positions. I imagine that is because focusing on positions is a losing proposition for McCain. Sorry about that.

 
On October 6, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Oliver North - sold weapons to Iran and gave support to Nicaraguan terrorists. McCain has not rebuked North nor has North been anything but "proud" of his actions

G. Gordon Liddy - Liddy served four years in jail for planning the Watergate break-in that ended Richard Nixon's presidency. In addition, Liddy has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary," plotting to murder journalist Jack Anderson, plotting to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators, plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution... McCain has been friends with, received funds from and held a fundraiser in the home of Liddy

John Hagee - called the Catholic church "a great whore" and "false cult," and endorsed McCain, which McCain at first sought out and accepted

Charles Keating - eventually arrested for savings and loan scandal; big supporter of McCain - at least in this case, McCain acknowledges his behavior as bad

See more of this hall of shame here.

If we're going to play guilt by association, let's do it for both sides. If we do so, we'll see much more to be concerned about on McCain's side than on Obama's side (although, there certainly ought to be concern and a watchful eye kept on all sides). After all, McCain's side has people with actual convictions and very serious crimes to be concerned with.

 
On October 6, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan, You pick and choose. Your evaluations of the ones listed has shown plenty of your own taint and has been disproved before. You are ready to believe what you want to believe and throw away a lot of REAL evidence to the contrary. Since your interpretation of the scriptures is so poor, I won't take your word on the judgment of character. mom2

 
On October 6, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Soooo, does that mean YES, we ought to look at the associates of BOTH candidates and, if they know anyone whose been naughty, then assume naughtiness on the part of the candidate? Or, NO, we ought not be in the business of judging guilt by association?

 
On October 6, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Anonymous Bubba said...

Dan, your assertion, "I'm much more interested in what their policy positions and planks are," is not the least bit credible, because you immediately follow up that assertion, not with detailed analysis about the candidates' policy positions, but invocations of Oliver North, Liddy, Hagee, and Keating.

If we're going to play guilt by association, let's do it for both sides. If we do so, we'll see much more to be concerned about on McCain's side than on Obama's side (although, there certainly ought to be concern and a watchful eye kept on all sides).

How magnanimous of you to admit that we should keep an eye on all sides, but only a truly radical fellow traveler would so foolishly assert -- as you have done, repeatedly -- that Oliver North is worse than an unrepentant domestic terrorist who targeted soldiers and their loved ones. Only a radical like you would think that Hagee's endorsement of McCain is worse than Obama's close personal ties to Jeremiah Wright, who conducted his wedding ceremony and baptized his children. And it takes a special kind of radicalism to embrace Jeremiah Wright as a holy "man of God" and accuse his critics of a "digital lynching."

The relatively mild criticism you have for Obama's closest associates doesn't make Obama look good. It makes you look like an equally poor judge of a person's character.

 
On October 6, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

but only a truly radical fellow traveler would so foolishly assert -- as you have done, repeatedly -- that Oliver North is worse than an unrepentant domestic terrorist who targeted soldiers and their loved ones...

"But Lieut. Col. Oliver North received one of the worst favorable-to-unfavorable ratios in the 11-year history of The Times/CBS News Poll. Only 6 percent had a favorable opinion of Colonel North, while 35 percent had an unfavorable opinion."

source, from back in 1987

It is true that I find North's behavior despicable, but I'm not alone in this regards, or at least, I wasn't at the time.

To the extent that people still remember that North ILLEGALLY sold WEAPONS TO IRAN while the US was ALSO SELLING WEAPONS TO SADDAM IN IRAQ in order to GIVE WEAPONS AND SUPPORT TO TERRORISTS IN NICARAGUA, I suspect that I am still not alone in my position.

We Americans don't approve of terrorism and giving support and weapons to folk like Saddam and bin Ladin and are pretty critical of someone who'd do so illegally. That folk like North and McCain are proud of this anti-american disgusting behavior is revolting and I suspect that this kind of attitude will be one contributing factor to McCain's eventual loss to Obama.

There's nothing all that radical in being consistently opposed to terrorism. Obama and I (and the majority of the US) find Ayers' and North's behavior disgusting and have said so. You all, on the other hand, appear to dismiss terroristic behavior as long as it's a rightwinger doing the terrorizing.

Tis a shame, but go ahead and support it and McCain all you want. If you think North is some kind of hero, then McCain's your man. But I suspect you're in the vast minority and rightly so.

 
On October 6, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Anonymous Bubba said...

Dan continues to prove that he is not just a liar. He's a transparent liar.

Again: "I'm much more interested in what their policy positions and planks are." Funny we don't get from him the same sort of passion discussing Obama's economic policies as he demonstrates when he's denouncing Iran-Contra.

Supposedly, Dan found Ayers' terrorism to be just as disgusting as Oliver North's, but notice how vehement he is in denouncing North, and how quickly he papers over Ayers.

Let's recall how Dan repeated the lie that Ayers targeted only property, not people, and how he implied that Ayers isn't a "real" terrorist.

And let's not forget how Dan repeatedly downplays Obama's long associations with the unrepentant domestic terrorist: he not only never acknowledges their work together in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers founded and Obama chaired, he notes only that Obama attended a party at Ayers house, without acknowledging that the purpose of that party was to launch Obama's political career.

His rote condemnation of Ayers is but the thinnest cover for his repeated and almost certainly deliberate lying to cover for Obama, to lie both about who Ayers is and about how closely Obama has worked with him.

 
On October 6, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Supposedly, Dan found Ayers' terrorism to be just as disgusting as Oliver North's

To clarify, I find North's support of terrorism to be magnitudes worse than Ayers, mainly because of the thousands of bodies left dead in North's path, not to mention the damage that such support of terrorism does to our national security.

But otherwise, just rant on. Keep ignoring your man's terrorist supporters while we condemn all terrorism. See how well that works for winning folk to your side.

 
On October 6, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Anonymous Bubba said...

In what sense is your condemnation of Ayers worth anything? You lied when you said he never targeted civilians, you despicably implied that Ayers wasn't a "real" terrorist, and you've never backed away from those comments.

In what sense is Obama's condemnation of Ayers' actions worth anything? He condemned Ayers' history of radical terrorism, not when he learned of that history -- which had to be early unless Mr. Judgment is an even bigger idiot than I suspect -- but when it became politically necessary to distance himself from Ayers.


Dan, you lie to make North look worse than he is, by dishonestly downplaying the Soviet support of the Sandinistas, and you lie to make Ayers look better than he is, by perpetuating the propaganda that he never intended bodily harm.

The idea that you are a principled opponent of terrorism in all its forms is thoroughly dishonest. You denounce Ayers only because your whitewashing of him is only so effective.

 
On October 6, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

It's like, with every breath he breathes and each rant he screeds, he breeds more and more support for my position, and he never even realizes how he comes across or that he lends my argument such magnificent support.

Such shining ignorance in the cause of a perhaps slightly more just society is a marvelous thing...

 
On October 6, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Anonymous Bubba said...

Dan, your grasp on reality is truly Biden-esque.

 
On October 6, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Blogger Erudite Redneck said...

For what it's worth, I freely admit that I want to see this election utterly destroy the Republican Party at the level fo presidential politics. Still run people for Congressm, sure, evenm the Senate. But I've spent my entire adult life listening to and putting up with and trying to get along with the GOP and, quite frankly, I'm exhausted. Liars. UnAmerican. Lately, fundamentalist Christian. I'm sick of it.

Forget getting along, politically. I want the party destroyed, with the right-wing elements going independent, the moderate elements joining the Democratic Party, and the rest going straight to hell (rhetorically speaking).

The GOP, specifically, conservatism, including righty Dems, have hypocritically and cynically damn near driven this country into the ground repeatedluy. I'm done. Let them die, as political movements.

Jesus is a liberal.

 
On October 6, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Blogger Erudite Redneck said...

Oh, and I'll look at anyone who is still a Repub the same way I look at Special Olympics kids: With compassion, with love, with hope -- but I would never, ever put any of them in charge of a damned thing -- damned, damned! (extra cussing just for Ms. Green, judgette extraordinaire).

 
On October 6, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

At least you're honest ER. Thanks for that much.

 
On October 6, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Blogger Erudite Redneck said...

You're welcome.

 
On October 6, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Blogger Marshall Art said...

Allow me to be honest as well.

ER, I don't know whether to tell you to put down the Dickel or to drink much more of it. Your rant might work for individual Republicans, but it works equally well for many Dems. As far as policy, the Dems have done more to hurt this nation by far. And I'll take imperfect fundies and conservatives to the anything goes social policies of the left any freakin' day of the week.

OK. Carry on.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Anonymous Bubba said...

Now that both Dan and ER have accused people they don't like of being anti-American and un-American, I wonder, is questioning a person's patriotism still off the table?

Anyway, I find it amazing that ER writes that it's the Republicans who have "hypocritically and cynically damn near driven this country into the ground repeatedluy [sic]," because it isn't the Republican party who has positioned itself to benefit from disasters for this country. This isn't a recent trend, as Bill Clinton lied when he said that 1992 was experiencing the "worst economy in 50 years," but the trend has become almost explicit in its treachery. The Democrats voted for the war in Iraq, and they almost immediately turned around and portrayed its astoundingly low casualty rates as a bloodbath, a quagmire, and another Vietnam; they support extending our enemies every legal protection to make our work as difficult as possible; and Murtha and his fellow Dems have slandered our soldiers by accusing them of murdering in cold blood, and Obama himself has said that our soldiers are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians." They talk about ending the war in Iraq, but never about winning the war, because victory isn't in their political interests. With the exception of the "righty Dems" like Lieberman who has since been driven out for the controversial desire to actually win in Iraq, the Democrats have been actively working for our defeat as a nation to ensure their victory as a political party. A more cynical act is hard to imagine.

About their nominee in particular, he has spent his entire political career surrounding himself with radicals who have had no problem planning, building, placing, and detonating bombs aimed at our government, both its buildings and its people, and who have never repented of their acts of domestic terrorism and instead wish only that they did more; radicals who peddle from the pulpit a racist theology that almost literally demonizes one race while seeking a balkanization that would tear this country apart, and who slander this country with the worst possible smears, accusing our government of inventing AIDS as an act of attempted genocide.

But despite all this, ER thinks it's the Republicans who are trying to pull this country down?

For forty years, his side of the aisle has been setting torches to the flag, and now he wants to wrap himself in that flag?

Really, who's being the cynical one here?


And while I'm addressing ER's absurdities, I'd love to see him explain and justify his ridiculous assertion that Jesus Christ is a liberal.

He wouldn't be able to do this even if he affirmed the inerrant authority of Scripture, which I believe he rejects as "fundamentalist," so he certainly cannot justify his claim by appealing to his personal, vague notions of Christianity.

Still, I'd like to see him try, in part because I would hate to think that he doesn't have a very good reason to risk blasphemy by invoking the name of Christ his ostensible Lord and Savior, to shore up his own political preferences.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Blogger ELAshley said...

Here's the difference between Obama's relationship with Ayers and McCain's one-time relationship with Keating.

Charles Keating was not KNOWN to be a corrupt businessman when his relationship with McCain began. Bill Ayers WAS known to be a terrorist when his relationship with Obama began. If you buddy up with someone who later turns out to be a crook, that's one thing. If you begin an association with someone known to already be a crook-– in this case a terrorist --that's quite another. The truth is that the best friend Barack Obama has out there is not a terrorist but is an uninformed celebrity-worshiping electorate.

Charles Hagee? What did he say that was wrong? The 17th chapter of Revelation clearly describes the Catholic Church-- though it further, clearly, describes a church during the tribulation. I firmly believe some Catholics will be caught up in the rapture, and what remains will be the false teachings of Catholicism warped even further to worship the Beast.

Oliver North? You just hate the man so much you've swallowed every conspiracy uttered against him.

Liddy? Please, I've had enough of this bogus prattle.

But going back to Keating... the association Obama has already begun to smear McCain with, is so starkly differentiated from Obama's own association with Ayers. Ayers WAS known to be a terrorist when his relationship with Obama began. Keating was NOT known to be a crook when he and McCain were friendly.

[Haven't time to check for typos... gotta run]

 
On October 7, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yahoo news has another troubling story that to me seems like part of a pattern. Corsi, who wrote a book about Dan's favorite is being detained in Kenya. He was picked up at his hotel. Now, it seems that to criticize his highness is a crime and anyone daring may be picked up and silenced in Missouri, Illinois, Kenya and where next. There are dangerous trends about this guy Obama and the young people of this country with little life experience are falling at his feet to worship and go vote for him. mom2

 
On October 7, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I forgot to do so in my last comment, but I have to come to Ms. Green's defense. If ER has so much trouble with her and some other of my "fundamentalist" friends that he can't even think kindly about us on this earth, does he really want to go to heaven or is he?, because I'm sure there are going to be lots of them there. Heaven is our final home (Christians) and if this world has more appeal to us, maybe we better check out our ticket (relationship with Jesus Christ). mom2

 
On October 7, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Anonymous Bubba said...

For what little it's worth, at his blog Dan still isn't being entirely honest about Bill Ayers.

For one thing, he still harps on the fact that McCain accepted Oliver North's endorsement, as if Ayers wasn't endorsing Obama when he hosted the party that launched his political career, and as if Obama didn't accept that endorsement by attending that party.


And, I made a point earlier that Dan never addressed, and I think it bears repeating.

About Dan's seeming outrage regarding North's endorsement of McCain and his accepting that endorsement, I wonder if Dan is similarly incensed that Obama hasn't repudiated the endorsement of former President Clinton, who pardoned 16 FALN terrorists in 1999 and whose last act as President was pardoning two Weather Underground terrorists, Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans.

So far as I know, Obama has never rejected Clinton's endorsement. Heck, Clinton spoke at the Dem convention this year.

I don't remember Oliver North speaking at the GOP convention...


The outrage at Oliver North's support of the Contras isn't credible unless Dan's similarly outraged at Bill Clinton's pardon of terrorists.


But most important is Dan's continued reluctance to be frank about who Bill Ayers is and what he did.

He now describes Ayers as a man "who was involved in domestic terrorism insofar as he blew up buildings and perhaps talked of harming a few individuals."

He "perhaps talked" of harming a few individuals?

This is a lie, and Dan ought to know better. As I explained to him in that same prior conversation, the bomb which was intended for an officers' dance was a NAIL BOMB which Ayers admitted was going to tear through "windows and walls and, yes, people too."

He has never disproven nor repudiated this claim, yet even now, Dan Trabue cannot frankly admit that Bill Ayers really did conspire to commit murder, just as he cannot bring himself to admit that Jeremiah Wright's racist hate-speech is much, much more than an anamolous outlier amidst a lifetime of otherwise benign orthodoxy.

His behavior continues to be quite appalling.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

I am, frankly, appalled at the complete lack of honesty by supporters of Barack Obama, both those in media and government, and those blind and deaf worshipers; the unwashed democratic/liberal masses.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

They would rather choke on wormy lies than eat freely of truth.

I am further appalled that ANY Christian would vote for Obama. No Christian can honestly or exegetically claim that abortion... especially partial birth abortion... is even remotely a firm foundation upon which to stand.

These are the same kind of Christians who believe in heaven, but not necessarily hell. They believe in God, but not the Devil. They believe in Jesus, but not the Jesus of the Bible.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17

"I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." John 6:35

"I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." John 8:12

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep... I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." John 10:7,9

"I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep... I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." John 10:11,14

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" John 11:25-26

Believest thou this?

Do any of you Christians believe this?

If so, why do you stand up for a man who supports the murder of innocent children? Forget Ayers! He's just another example of poor judgment exercised by Barack Obama. The abortion issue alone is reason enough to disqualify Barack Obama for consideration for the office of President.... to the Christian!

Disobey God if you wish; that is your option. But don't think that just because you call yourself Christian I won't greatly and roundly criticize you for it. Don't think that because I am Christian I won't judge your support of a man who himself supports the murder of innocent children. I am obligated to judge your actions.

I am not, however, allowed to condemn you.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

More on the problems with "Guilt by association" -

"John McCain sat on the board of...the U.S. Council for World Freedom," said Begala, "The Anti-Defamation League, in 1981 when McCain was on the board, said this about this organization. It was affiliated with the World Anti-Communist League - the parent organization - which ADL said 'has increasingly become a gathering place, a forum, a point of contact for extremists, racists and anti-Semites.'"

If McCain wants to start the guilt-by-association game, he's going to have a lot more to lose.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Eric said:

I am, frankly, appalled at the complete lack of honesty by supporters of Barack Obama, both those in media and government

Lack of honesty, how? For my part, I have clearly and repeatedly condemned terrorism - whether it was committed by Ayers or by North.

The lack of honesty, from where I sit, seems to be from those who'd excuse terrorism (even when it resulted in tens of thousands of deaths) when it is supported by someone who calls himself a conservative, but condemn Obama for knowing a guy whose deadly actions Obama has condemned.

Where is the honesty in that? IS terrorism wrong or is it only wrong if "left-wingers" do it?

IF you say, "only when left-wingers do it" then that is fundamentally dishonest and wrong, since in an ideal world, we could all agree that terrorism is always wrong.

However, as I have said, continue to act hypocritically on this front; the more blatant hypocrisy and dishonesty the McCainites embrace, the less likely he is to win.

Ideally, though, I'd hope you could join me as Christian brothers and sisters and consistently condemn terrorism - whoever is embracing it.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Anonymous Bubba said...

Lack of honesty, how?

I reiterate, Dan, that you do not seem willing to admit that William Ayers actually did plan to commit murder. At your own blog you very recently referred to Ayers as someone "who was involved in domestic terrorism insofar as he blew up buildings and perhaps talked of harming a few individuals."

It's dishonest to say only that Ayers "perhaps talked of harming a few individuals," when he planned to bomb an officers' dance with a pipe bomb that he admitted was going to tear through "windows and walls and, yes, people too."

From whitewashing Ayers' life as an unrepentant terrorist, to downplaying the long association between Ayers and Obama, to pretending that Jeremiah Wright's hate speech was a rare deviation from more benign preaching, you demonstrate a capacity for lying consistently, to the point of doing so pathologically.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

I reiterate, Dan, that you do not seem willing to admit that William Ayers actually did plan to commit murder.

Bubba, I don't know enough about the story. I know that YOU have said that he had intended to and you may well be right. I just don't know enough about the story to have an opinion.

I do know that you have shown yourself to have a hard time understanding words written down in black and white, so I'm not especially eager to assume that you are correct, simply because you have such a horrible track record. Still, you may be correct and if so, we (Obama, I and others of like mind) WOULD condemn such behavior.

We have been consistently opposed to terroristic behavior. If Ayers had intended to do more than the terrorism of blowing up stuff, then he was also wrong on that point.

Is that clear enough?

Not knowing about his story is not the same as whitewashing his story. Can you understand that?

 
On October 7, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Now, do you also understand the fundamental dishonesty of suggesting that Obama has "terrorist pals" when Obama has consistently condemned terrorism BUT at the same time, failing to acknowledge the terrorism supported by those in McCain's camp?

I'll say it again so it can sink in: We have been opposed to terrorism every time.

When Ayers committed terrorism (when Obama and I were children) AND when North supported terrorism that led to the deaths of thousands. Each and every instance of such terrorism, we condemn.

The acts that are MORE terroristic (ie, result in more deaths), we condemn even more.

Now, won't you join us in consistently condemning terrorism?

 
On October 7, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan, It's pretty obvious that you come up with this "I don't know about that issue" stuff when it is convenient, but you would scour the ends of the earth to dig up something (being it true or not) on someone that does not fit your ideology. You have been on the internet sites too much not to be known for what you are. mom2

 
On October 7, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

So, is that a "YES! I WILL join you in consistently condemning terrorism!"

OR, is it a "No, I'd rather condemn your guy because he knew a bad guy once and served on a charity board that helped the needy with him but save praise for the bad guys MY guy knew because he was supporting communism and mass slaughter of people for a noble and just cause"?

 
On October 7, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Anonymous Bubba said...

More loaded questions and even putting words in other people's mouths, from one who insists that he is oh-so-concerned with civil discourse.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chill out y'all. Enjoy Sarah Silverman's great Schlep!

 
On October 7, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

Sarah Silverman schelping for a moral reprobate? With foul language to boot? Good one, Anon. Thanks for stopping by.

Blame the Jews! That's right, don't ya'll know they're the cause of all the ills in the world? Not folk like Ayers and Obama. Never the radicals and people "of color" who follow them. Oh, no! Not dear Barack. Not the man who condones the murder of innocent children and defends the hideous practice of Partial Birth Abortion. No! Barack is as clean and righteous as the wind-driven snow. How dare anyone criticize the savior of America!?

"Come to me my babies, let me quell your pain!!!"

[end sarcasm]

Barack will turn this country into a moral Jonestown.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

After all the only difference between these two messiahs* is the color of their skins.


-------
*See the last statement in the previous comment. I should have said "Spiritual" Jonestown.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Sooo, is that a "YES! I will enthusiastically always oppose those who use terrorism"?

Why is this a difficult question? This seems like it'd be a no-brainer.

Yes, I am always opposed to terrorism.

No, I think sometimes targeting innocent civilians is justified.

Or, if you prefer, offer some third or fourth alternative. Far be it from me to put words in anyone's mouth.

For my part, and for Obama's part, we will gladly and strongly ALWAYS stand opposed to terrorism.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

WHAT ABOUT TERRORISM AGAINST THE UNBORN!!???

Will Obama stand against THAT!?

NOT HARDLY! The man who supports murder is as guilty of murder as though he held the scalpel in his own bloodstained hand!

Imagine that! Christians supporting a murderer! Will wonders never cease!?

 
On October 7, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

The man who supports murder is as guilty of murder as though he held the scalpel in his own bloodstained hand!

So, does that mean that you and McCain and your pals here all have bloodstained hands for supporting a terrorist (North)? That you're guilty of murder?

 
On October 7, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I take it that Dan is no longer going to vote for Obama. To be true to his word, I guess he will vote third party since he talks like both McCain and Obama are for terrorists and surely Dan will not be able to vote for either of them. Good! mom2
I might add Dan, that I have said nothing that ties my vote up.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

I guess he will vote third party since he talks like both McCain and Obama are for terrorists and surely Dan will not be able to vote for either of them.

Y'all are entertaining to talk to, if nothing else (assuming one gets some joy from trying to follow convoluted thinkin').

McCain is not a terrorist. Neither is Obama. McCain HAS had the support of a man who supported terrorism (North) and violence (Liddy) and McCain has not rejected that support.

I'd prefer that we not get into the mode of guilt by association. I'd prefer we stick to the topics and what the candidate's positions are.

But I've pointed out quite clearly here that IF we were going to do that, McCain would have more to explain than Obama. Obama, for his part, has rejected the violence embraced by Ayers. McCain has not rejected the violence and terrorism and lawbreaking supported by Liddy/North.

IF we're going to use associations as a guide to worthiness for office, then clearly you can't vote for McCain. And that is a good thing, mom2. I'd hate you to support a fella who supports a fella who supports terrorism.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Anonymous Bubba said...

Dan, your calls for "joining" you in opposing all forms of terrorism and your questions about whether agree with such opposition do not appear to me to be made in good faith.

If you are truly consistent in opposing all forms of terrorism, you're flagrantly partisan in determining when terrorism has occurred, because, while you're not convinced that Bill Ayers conspired to commit murder, you accept even the discredited conspiracy theories to villify your political opponents.

(And you STILL haven't addressed the fact that President Clinton, keynote speaker at the Dem convention, pardoned terrorists on his last day of office.)

If it's really the case that you're consistent in examining allegations of terrorism, you're flagrantly partisan in the actual act of examining those allegations. It's amazing, your utter lack of curiosity about Bill Ayers, how you "just don't know enough" to form an opinion.

You're not trying to ascertain and then argue for the truth. You're trying to play games with the truth in order to advance an agenda, and your dishonesty precludes any substantive discussion on our "joining together" to oppose terrorism.

Simply put, none of us are obligated to answer loaded questions, presented in bad faith, by an inveterate liar like you.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Unfortunately, you can't point to one single lie that I have made. Being human, I DO make mistakes sometimes and it is possible I have made a mistake. But I have not lied.

And also unfortunately, I can point to a lie that you have made - your statement that I have lied is, itself, a bald-faced lie which you cannot support. (It is, of course, possible that you are merely mistaken - if you care to show how you came to that wrongful conclusion, you may try).

Now, until such time as you show yourself to be merely mistaken, I have pointed out a direct lie that you have made. You may show how you came to that false conclusion or we can just accept that it is a bald-faced lie. In either case, I'd suggest that in a personal email to me would be the place to carry on such a conversation rather than distracting folk here with empty charges and corrections and possibly counter-corrections, seeing as how these attacks upon my character (MUCH like the baseless attacks on Obama's character) have very little to do with the topic at hand.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

And why is asking folk to join with Obama and me in opposing terrorism in every instance have anything to do with good faith? I am, in fact, opposed to acts of violence against innocent people. I am further willing to call those who engage in such acts, "wrong."

It doesn't matter if those who engage in such acts are Democrats or Republicans, "liberals" or "conservatives." It is wrong and I will gladly say so. Why is it a "loaded question" or not in "good faith" to ask others to join in with that simple basic premise?

 
On October 7, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Anonymous Bubba said...

Dan, your question about the "simple basic premise" of strict opposition to terrorism in all its forms, is loaded because of your obvious, dishonest bias.

It doesn't matter if those who engage in such acts are Democrats or Republicans, "liberals" or "conservatives."

That is not entirely true.

You believe the most ridiculous conspiracy theories about conservatives -- e.g., the "October Surprise" -- and will regurgitate whatever claim you find that makes McCain and any other Republican look bad, but the evidence that William Ayers intended to murder soldiers and their loved ones? You just don't find that particular claim credible, and you just can't be bothered to investigate the claim yourself.

Once we get past your ridiculously skewed standards and your selective curiosity, maybe you're more fair in condeming terrorism from all fronts, but the biased barriers to getting to that point are enough to see that you're not evaluating evidence in good faith.

The lack of good faith is in the context of your question.


Now, I'm not interested in communicating by personal email, and until ELAshley gives the word, I'm going to presume that our little digression isn't too far out of bounds.

In no uncertain terms, I stand by my position that you are a liar.

I cannot prove this belief beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I believe that my now-long history with you online demonstrates that you don't care about truth as an objective reality to be defended for its own sake: you see it as just another rhetorical weapon to be exploited and then discarded the moment it becomes burdensome.

Your relationship with the truth is too inconsistent, too frankly mercenary, to be chalked up to human error. Unless you suffer from mental retardation or mental illness, I can only presume that you simply choose to propagate what's convenient rather than what's true, when the two are in conflict.


It is not true that "Obama has tried to not engage in the politics of personal destruction." He has pre-emptively accused his opponents of playing the race card.

It is absurd to suggest, as you do in response to ELAshley's fourth "pop quiz" question, that Jeremiah Wright isn't an anti-American zealot or a racist; the latter is particularly absurd because Wright subscribes to a theology that is EXPLICITLY racist, in both name and content.

It is not true that ACORN is "soundly and profoundly pro-American," either in its radical historical roots, or in its continued militancy, or in its attempts to undermine our fundamental political institutions through, e.g., voter fraud.

It is, at the least, implausible that you are "much more interested in what [the candidates'] policy positions and planks are," considering how much you want to focus on Oliver North.

It is implausible that Hagee is worse for McCain that Wright is for Obama, considering that Wright presided over his marriage, baptized his children, and was called Obama's spiritual mentor; moreover, Obama titled a book after a phrase from on of Wright's sermons and gave literally tens of thousands of dollars to Wright's church while attending that church over the course of two decades.

It is not true that William Ayers only targeted "stuff" -- property and not people -- and it is frankly disgusting to imply that Ayers isn't a "real" terrorist.

And, it is not true that William Ayers only "perhaps talked of harming a few individuals."

If these statements were mistakes, you err at an alarming rate, so I give you the credit of having a reasonable amount of intelligence, and so I conclude that these dishonest statements are more likely deliberate lies rather than accidental errors.


If discussing the specifics of these political figures is too controversial, I can also return to an earlier point about language: you seem to use a needlessly broad definition for capitalism and a needless narrow definition for socialism, the combined effect of which is to provide fairly useless terms in describing American politics, since -- by those definitions -- the vast majority can be called capitalists since most of us believe in the private ownership of property.

Now, if you believe -- as you claim -- that capitalism only entails the private ownership of property, why did you ask this question discussing the credit crisis?

"Can anyone explain this to someone like me who is not a part of the capitalist religion?"

What could you possibly mean by "the capitalist religion" if capitalism entails nothing more than the private ownership of property? You still haven't answered that question, and I suspect the conundrum is solved by the fact that you were invoking that particular definition with something less than perfect honesty.


These are just a few examples why I don't believe you're trustworthy as an individual. I think they speak for themselves.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Blogger Erudite Redneck said...

Um, if someone finds an example of where I've attacked an individual on this thresd, point it out. I attacked the GOP as an institution.


Re, "his ostensible Lord and Savior."

LOL. Just say it, if you're sure of yourself, Bubba. Don't hide behind words. I dare you to judge me.


Re, "Jesus is a liberal." Here's a great discussion of that. My thoughts are therein:

http://eruditeredneck.blogspot.com/2005/08/
jesus-is-liberal.html


General, re: abortion. If I thought the GOP was serious about reducing abortion, rather than using it as a cynical rhetorical political wedge, I might give y'all the benefit of the doubt. But the GOP doesn't give a damn about unborn babies, and neither do y'all.

You want to end abortion YOUR way, and ONLY your way, which is to criminalize it. I want to slow it as much as possible by improving quality of life for the poor and marginalized and by other spending.


General, regarding the pure hell coming to this country courtesy of conservatism, privatization, deregulation and make-believe financing and economics: It's Reagan's legacy. Enjoy it until your party chokes to death.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Blogger Craig said...

Let's put aside for a moment "past" questionable associations and look at current ones. Franklin Raines has (probably still is) one of BHO's economic advisors. Do we really want the person who bears a significant responsibility for the "questionsble" accounting processes that brought down F/F and made him about 100 million dollars in bonuses.

Let's also look at what BHO wants. He recently said that "we" would do the following. (he may be talking about himself and his rich freinds, but I suspect he means us)

150 billion on r/d for alternative energies
Pay for automakers to retool plants to build (what one can only assume would be) some sort of govt mandated vehicle/technology.
Fund r/d for private/publicly held companies
Lower capitol gains taxes on small buisness, on the theory that it will only help small buisness not all buisness
Open manufacturing plants to produce something.
Recruit new teachers and increase salaries.
"Pick up the tab" for people with serious illnesses
Increase insurance premiums by forcing insurance companies to accept people with preexisting conditions.

This raises a couple of questions. Does BHO realize that the president does not have the power to do these things? Who is going to pay for all of this?

Obviously Dan is going to support BHO no matter what or who is associates with. It doesn't seem to bother Dan that ACORN (again a demonstrably corrupt orginization, with which BHO has ties) is going to recieve a significant amount of funding from the "bailout bill". So why not move past this. We saw what BHO supporters did during the RNC. The question I would like answered is will people like Ayers continue to have BHO's ear if he is elected.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Blogger Craig said...

P.S. BHO has written more books than pieces of legislation.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Blogger Erudite Redneck said...

Re, "BHO has written more books than pieces of legislation."

That ought to be one of Barack Obama's campaign slogans. Thanks for the idea.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 9:42 PM, Blogger Craig said...

I think he should steal Al Franken's line about F'ing hating right wing M'F's that has so much more class.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Blogger Marshall Art said...

Dan,

The questions surrounding Barry's ties to Ayers have been around for awhile. You want us to believe you're unaware of Ayers' past? You've made charges of terrorist support toward Ollie North. I've researched the issue a bit and have found that the charge is a biased one to be sure. Those he supported were fighting a regime who themselves were guilty of terrorism as well as impersonating Contras to further demonize them. As for lying, you've stated that Ortega was democratically elected when my research shows that 1)He was initially elected when the people were fed up with the Samoza regimes and would take Satan himself for a change, and 2)When his relection was seriously in doubt, he gamed the system to allow his election with no more than 35-7% of the vote. Hardly a mandate. Hardly democratic. Thus, the charge of supporting terrorism by North is specious at best and lacks enough hard facts to support the charge. With Ayers, it's a case with no such doubts that has, again, been pointed to for quite enough time for an honest debater to check out.

To digress further, we could argue motivations of the two. North supported actions against a regime that was propped up by communist nations and men with guns. Ayers engaged in terrorism against a regime that was supported by a true democratic republic which could have been changed by merely encouraging more people to side with him at the polls.

Veering back to the topic, I will not, therefor, join you and your buddy Barry in opposing something for which you have no clear and consistent opinion. I will, however, state mine hear once again: I oppose terrorist activity on the order of a Bill Ayers, or Osama bin Laden or KSM, that target civilians as an intial tactic, but I do not consider terrorism to include the annihilation of a city as a last resort when there seems no clear end in sight and not doing so results in more sacrifice of our own people, ala Hank Truman.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Blogger Mark said...

Dan, think about this:

In order to commit to setting off a bomb, one must be resigned to the very real possibility that someone may die. If one decides to set that bomb off anyway, knowing innocent people might die as a result, doesn't that make one a murderer?

OK, so Obama was only 7-8 when Ayres was committing these crimes. The point is, in 2001, when Obama was all grown up, Ayres said he didn't regret bombing the capitol, that he thinks he didn't do enough, and that he doesn't discount the possibility that he would do it again. And Obama was Aryes' buddy anyway.

And Obama knew Ayres history way back when they were Community Organisers together.

What kind of honorable man would even allow a murderer like that within shouting distance of him?

What does this say about Obama's integrity?

Maybe it's just me, but knowingly being friends with a killer of innocent people is unforgivable and indefensible.

I wouldn't go to a murderer's party even if I was invited. I don't associate with scum. I wouldn't want to be a murderers friend.

And I'm not even running for President.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Blogger Marshall Art said...

ER,

" I attacked the GOP as an institution."

I haven't noticed anyone saying otherwise, except for me, when I said that your words might work for an individual Repub, but not the party in general. More clearly, not the philosophy, but the Dem/lefty philosophy has indeed harmed the nation.

Damn. I meant to check out your link first. Be right back.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Blogger Mark said...

Well, in my haste to make my point, I skimmed past the majority of the previous comments, so I missed the one wherein Dan called for us to join him and Obama in condemning terrorism.

Dan, you can't be serious!

Obama condemns terrorism? In whose world? One of his best friends IS a terrorist!

And even if he wasn't, If Obama condemns terrorism so stringently, why do the terrorists all want him to be elected President?

The problem with you, Dan, is you will never admit when you are dead wrong. Either that, or you just enjoy arguing, even when you are outnumbered.

 
On October 7, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Blogger Marshall Art said...

ER,

Just got back from reading your link. The problem with your perspective, whether you mean it literally or just use it to provoke discussion, is that Jesus only spoke to the individual, even if there were crowds present. That is, His message was for me, for you, for each of us as opposed to all of us vis a vis any sized government. It is right for us to give, it is not right for us to force others to give. On that issue, He is not liberal. Arthur Brooks' book "Who Really Cares" points out which political persuasion gives most, and it ain't your side. So even if He is liberal as you say, libs don't follow His Word as much as the average conservative/Christian.

Digression ended.

 
On October 8, 2008 at 5:33 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Wow. So much has been written. So little has been said.

Bubba delivered this little beauty:

I cannot prove this belief beyond a shadow of a doubt

And then could not point to a single - not one - instance of a spot where I have lied. Instead, he pointed to a bunch of instances where he and I disagree and made the laughable argument that, because we disagree so consistently, I MUST be lying.

!

Or something.

Is that it? You can't point to one single line in all our time together where you can say, "This was a lie"? All you have is

[Lists a bunch of places where we have disagreements and then Bubba says:]

...If these statements were mistakes, you err at an alarming rate, so I give you the credit of having a reasonable amount of intelligence, and so I conclude that these dishonest statements are more likely deliberate lies rather than accidental errors.

You DO understand the concept of having different opinions, do you not? Believe it or not, one CAN disagree with the almighty Bubba and not be disagreeing because they're lying but because, well, they disagree.

Bubba, get serious.

 
On October 8, 2008 at 5:44 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

And I apparently will have to apologize to everyone and tell you the awful truth that, before this year (or maybe last), I had never in my life heard the name "Ayers." I did not know who he was, nor what he did or didn't do.

Believe it or not, I only barely knew who the WU were. I mean, I knew the name and that they were "domestic terrorists" who used violent tactics to try to stop the war in Viet Nam, but that was the extent of my knowledge of them.

Like Obama, I was a child when that stuff happened and I just didn't know much about them.

On the other hand, I grew up in the midst of the North, Reagan and Iran Contra scandal. It is one major factor that led me to believe that "conservatives" of the Reagan/North type (with which I had associated and aligned myself) were not especially conservative or Christian.

When Reagan entered office in 1980, I was a Reagan supporter. When Bush left office in 1992, I was thoroughly opposed to much of their policy. I lived through their crimes and misbehavior and was well read on their actions. I have had friends visit the countries where some of their crimes took place and have been to Nicaragua myself.

And so, I suppose I will have to apologize for being more knowledgeable about North than I am Ayers, but that's just the way it is.

I am so sorry that I am not omniscient and aware of all of Ayers' actions and motives. I have read in the last months that Ayers did engage in acts of terrorism [and here's a hint Bubba, to understanding my words - when I say "Ayers did engage in terrorism," that means I think he engaged in terrorism], inasmuch as he blew up some buildings.

I have also read some of the Reagan/North/Bush/Bubba type of Republicans assure me that Ayers intended on killing people, too, and that may well be true.

But given the political bias of these folk and their penchant to misunderstand/misrepresent reality, you will simply have to excuse me if I don't accept their interpretation of reality as fact.

 
On October 8, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Blogger Marshall Art said...

Dan,

Your whole perspective on the North situation is a lie. It is at least dishonest by virtue of the fact that you continually support one side without admitting to their own terrorism which has been documented for you. The fact is that you supported Sandinista terrorism whilst Ollie and Ron supported those who fought them. It seems you base your position on the anecdotal testimony of friends and Nicaraguans who may have sided or even benefitted from being an Ortega supporter. You accuse North and Reagan for actions that were ongoing before their Democratic opponents in Congress decided to outlaw them as they were supportive of the Sandinista regime. And then, in a move that is of the type you have expressly denigrated in the past, you question their Christianity. Very much the move for which you've chastised me concerning Cone and Wright. In other words, your continual refusal to acknowledge the other side of the Contra story is dishonest for the fact that readers unfamiliar might take them as the last word.

 
On October 8, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Anonymous Bubba said...

ER, let me be absolutely clear that, if I ever became absolutely convinced that you're inauthentic in your faith, I would let you know, quite plainly.

I stand behind my belief, for instance, that Dan Trabue is a transparent and inveterate liar. I don't "hide behind words."

I AM NOT absolutely convinced of a false faith on your part, ER. I alluded to your "ostensible" Lord and Savior because it's not always perfectly clear that you're making a good-faith effort to conform your worldview to His teachings. Instead, it sometimes seems at least possible that you're trying to invoke His teachings to justify your politics, as with your claim that "Jesus is a liberal."

I skimmed through the comment thread you highlighted, and it doesn't seem that you actually tried to justify that claim. In fact, it appears that you made a deliberately provocative claim just to get people to realize that liberals can be Christians, too.

For what it's worth, I believe that Christians can believe in government welfare programs, for instance. It is the postmodern rejection of objective truth, for instance, that cannot be reconciled with Christian orthodoxy: as a Christian, my issue is much less with the political policies of the broad Left, and much more with the philosophical foundations of the far Left.

But, anyway, you wrote "Jesus is a liberal" to be provocative.

Well, you provoked.

You should really not be surprised at negative reactions to deliberately provocative statements that, in the end, you're not willing to justify.

 
On October 8, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Let's clear up a few other false beliefs/assertions/presumptions. Mark said:

What kind of honorable man would even allow a murderer like that within shouting distance of him?...

Maybe it's just me, but knowingly being friends with a killer of innocent people is unforgivable and indefensible.


1. Presuming Mark is talking about Ayers being a murderer, this is simply not the case. Ayers did not kill anyone. He and the WU blew up some buildings. Bubba has made the claim that he also "planned to" kill some military personnel. That is certainly bad and terroristic. It is not murder. This is a wrong statement.

2. As far as "willingly being friends" with Ayers, I do not believe that this has been established. Rather, Obama's camp has stated that the two have been on friendly terms, having served on a charitable board together.

3. But even if we discover that Obama and Ayers are/were friends, I assume that we all agree that we can be friends with people who have committed bad actions in the past? Jesus, after all, hung out with the dregs of society - prostitutes, crooks, lepers of all sorts. There is a difference between befriending someone and supporting their sins. Obama has called Ayers' WU actions deplorable, detestable.

4. All I have repeatedly pointed out here is that the Republican-types have been hypocritical because they want to castigate Obama for having a friend whose sinful actions Obama has rebuked, AND YET you are fine with McCain having friends whose crimes were much worse and not only does McCain have these friends (and we've established that having friends with sinners is no sin), but he does not condemn their actions. Therein lies the Republican hypocrisy.

A point which lies ignored on these pages.

 
On October 8, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Continuing the Truth Telling, Marshall said:

Your whole perspective on the North situation is a lie. It is at least dishonest by virtue of the fact that you continually support one side without admitting to their own terrorism which has been documented for you. The fact is that you supported Sandinista terrorism whilst Ollie and Ron supported those who fought them.

The "fact" is that what you have stated is an unmitigated lie. A falsehood. A bearing of false witness. NEVER have I supported any acts of terrorism. You are simply, clearly, factually wrong.

When the Sandinistas committed crimes, they were wrong. I have never supported their action. Your statement above is a falsehood. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you made the statement in ignorance, based on a false hunch or guess that this was my position.

It is not. If and when the Sandinistas engaged in terroristic acts against innocents, they were wrong. When the Contras engaged in terrorism, they were wrong.

This is why I asked if we could not join together and agree that all acts of terrorism are wrong? I'm willing to state so definitively. Will you join me in doing so, Marshall?

 
On October 8, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Anonymous Bubba said...

Dan, why is Marshall's statement an "unmitigated lie" and not merely a difference of opinion?

Why is my claim that you're a liar a "bald-faced lie" and not merely a difference of opinion?

You're very quick to hide behind the idea of "different opinions," when it suits you:

You DO understand the concept of having different opinions, do you not? Believe it or not, one CAN disagree with the almighty Bubba and not be disagreeing because they're lying but because, well, they disagree.

Bubba, get serious.


But, then, you don't let that concept of different opinions dissuade you from accusing others of lying when we hold opinions about you with which you disagree.

Does someone here have a problem with disagreements with the almighty Dan, hm?

Does someone here need to take his own advice about "getting serious"?

 
On October 8, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Blogger Mark said...

Re: Dan's statement, "Ayers did not kill anyone. He and the WU blew up some buildings."

I thought Dan knew the Bible. In Matthew 5:21, Jesus says, (paraphrased)"You have heard that if you murder someone, you are in danger of God's judgment, but I say, even if you consider murder, you have committed murder in your mind already".

Taking that into consideration, As I mentioned, which Dan seems to have missed, "In order to commit to setting off a bomb, one must be resigned to the very real possibility that someone may die. If one decides to set that bomb off anyway, knowing innocent people might die as a result, doesn't that make one a murderer?"

The difference between Dan's assertion that one can be friendly with someone who committed crimes in the past and Obama being friends with Ayres? Friends who have paid their debt to society and have repented and have committed to never committing those crimes again can be forgiven, and there is a reasonable expectation that they have reformed.

Ayres is unrepentent and stated on the record that he won't discount the possibility that he would do it again. I reiterate:

Who among us would deliberately associate with a known murderer? Who among us doesn't have the moral integrity to distance ourselves from associations of that kind?

We know the answer to that question already.

Obama doesn't have moral integrity thus, there is no end that doesn't justify the means in his view.

And if Dan doesn't agree with that, he has no more moral integrity and intellectual honesty than Obama. I'm done.

 
On October 8, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Who among us would deliberately associate with a known murderer?

Mark, the part of the equation that you are leaving out is that NORTH also deliberately took actions that led to THOUSANDS of deaths. By your definition, that makes him a murderer in a much more solid way (ie, people actually died) than Ayers.

So, I ask you your own question:

Who among us would deliberately associate with a known murderer? McCain hasn't. Obama hasn't.

The difference between the two is that Obama at least repudiated the sins of his acquaintance. McCain has not.

Will you answer your own question or will you admit hypocrisy by your silence?

 
On October 8, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Bubba said:

why is Marshall's statement an "unmitigated lie" and not merely a difference of opinion?

Why is my claim that you're a liar a "bald-faced lie" and not merely a difference of opinion?


Bubba, I know you're not unintelligent, so see if you can't wrap your mind around this:

The difference between your assertions and mine is that your's and Marshall's were blanket statements, not subjective opinions.

"The fact is that you supported Sandinista terrorism whilst Ollie and Ron supported those who fought them."

That is a statement of fact that can be verified or not. In this case, Marshall cannot hope to verify it because it never happened. I have never supported Sandinista terrorism. The statement is either false or true, he's not offering an opinion. He is offering what he calls a "fact."

The REAL fact is, that I have NOT supported Sandinista terrorism. Therefore, this statement is a falsehood. A lie. A misstatement.

Now, I did go on to give Marshall the benefit of the doubt and said that he may have made the statement in ignorance. That is, it is possible that Marshall THOUGHT that was my position, but if he thought that, he did so in ignorance because it is not a position I have ever advocated.

That was a factual statement that was either true or false. In this case, it was demonstrably false.

On the other hand, your list of "lies" on my part included such gems such as:

It is not true that ACORN is "soundly and profoundly pro-American,"

This is veering over into subjective opinion. It is my opinion that ACORN's ideals are pro-American. You disagree. That is okay, but the very topic being discussed is subjective. How does one measure "pro-Americanism"? How much does it weigh? What does it look like? The answers are subjective.

I look at their commitment to grass-roots, bottom up democracy and find that to be profoundly American. You look at their methods that make you uneasy and it is your opinion that their methods are ANTI-democracy. And you are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine.

But it is not a "lie" for me to say that I think they're pro-American. It's a statement of opinion, not fact.

Come now, surely you understand the difference?

 
On October 8, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Blogger Mark said...

This just in:

Employees of ACORN in Las Vegas have just been arrested or indicted (I don't know which) for illegally registering the entire Dallas Cowboys roster to vote...as Obama Democrats.

Oh yeah, ACORN is pro-American.

Just like Willaim Ayres!

 
On October 8, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Those actions, Mark, are illegal (assuming you have your facts straight) and those particular ACORN employees would be clearly wrong if they were conducting illegal behavior.

I think you, I and Obama could all agree with this wholeheartedly.

My question still remains open to you, though: JUST AS the actions of these employees is criminal and wrong, SO TOO were North's actions criminal and wrong. And wrong on a much greater scale, in that tens of thousands of lives were killed with North's support.

Wouldn't you agree and join me and Obama in condemning such actions? Or, are you merely trying to make partisan points by condemning the speck in the eye of ACORN while ignoring the deadly log in the eye of North and his supporters? In short, are you going to choose hypocrisy or not?

 
On October 8, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

As to the "facts" of Mark's story:

Neither the group, which hires canvassers to register voters, nor any employees have been charged or arrested for fraud or other crimes, said Miller, a Democrat.

My source for this story, by the way, is GOPUSA from today, Oct. 8. Has that story changed or did Mark just "create" a new fact to fit his agenda?

That is, did Mark offer another bald-faced lie in guise of "facts" or is he merely ignorant in his statement (OR - and this is always a possibility - has there been an update to this story that I can't find and someone has actually been arrested)?

 
On October 8, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Blogger ELAshley said...

A few observations

"Thus, the charge of supporting terrorism by North is specious at best and lacks enough hard facts to support the charge."

Dan's perspective of life in Nicaragua, I will venture to say, is colored by the stories from those who have been to Nicaragua on mission trips, as well as his own forays there-- "I have had friends visit the countries where some of their crimes took place and have been to Nicaragua myself." That being said, his understanding of the country's recent history, despite his visit[s], is both slim, AND colored by his hatred of Reagan and the Evil Mr. North. He's willing to forgive a multitude of sins from men like Ortega and Obama, but he will not accord the same forgiveness to the imaginary sins of men like North and McCain.

Obama is guilty of exceedingly poor judgment in his personal and political relationships, but Dan will vote for him anyway because he hates men like Oliver North, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and John McCain. Perhaps "hate" is too strong a word, but that is likely what the casual passerby would think reading just a smidgen of Dan's comments.

Let me reiterate-- Ayer's sins were known BEFORE Obama got between the political sheets with him. Keating, however, was NOT known to be a crook prior to... This is the fundamental difference between supposed dalliances with crooks and liars by McCain, and the very REAL dalliances with crooks, liars, murderers, and terrorists by Obama.



"You DO understand the concept of having different opinions, do you not? Believe it or not, one CAN disagree with the almighty Bubba and not be disagreeing because they're lying but because, well, they disagree."

And I'll hold you to that very same standard: Bush is not a liar. Neither is North. Obama on the other hand......



And then there's this nugget:

"But given the political bias of these folk and their penchant to misunderstand/misrepresent reality, you will simply have to excuse me if I don't accept their interpretation of reality as fact."

Right back at 'cha, Dan. North and McCain were both exonerated of the evils politically biased folk like yourself like to perennially tar and feather them with. Obama on the other hand HAS associated with a terrorist, and that association was more than that of a relational passerby in the life of William Ayers. And who's to say he is still not? After all, the Obama campaign continues to threaten and block access to records that could shed greater light on his association with the unrepentant Ayers. What is he afraid of?


As to ACORN, did you know their offices in Nevada were raided last night by State Investigators and Police? Dare I say it? "VOTER FRAUD."

 
On October 8, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Blogger ELAshley said...

"1. Presuming Mark is talking about Ayers being a murderer, this is simply not the case. Ayers did not kill anyone."

Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. --1John 3:15

 
On October 8, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Anonymous Bubba said...

Dan, the question of whether William Ayers only targeted "stuff" and never targeted human beings involves a statement of fact: either he did target people, or he didn't. The question of whether Jeremiah Wright's theology is racist also involves a statement of fact: either black liberation theology is racist, or it isn't.

You cannot plausibly assert that my (far from comprehensive) list of issues with you includes nothing but matters of subjective opinion.

Beyond that, I stand by my position that no honest view of ACORN can conclude that it's "soundly and profoundly pro-American." As I wrote in the sentence that you only partially excerpted, their history of voter fraud demonstrates a willingness to undermine America's political institutions. There's nothing even arguably pro-American about that or, more fundamentally, their militancy when it comes to employing "direct action" in general to short-circuit "indirect" political mechanisms like the ballot box.


Your explanation for why it's perfectly permissible for you to accuse others of "bald-faced" and "unmitigated" lies, while you think my belief that you lie is worthy of ridicule, isn't persuasive.

Instead, I think your approach to the subject of what qualifies as a lie, demonstrates your capacity for lying.

Everything's subjective and a matter of opinion to you, when it's convenient. And when that's not convenient, everything's about objective and verifiable truth.

The accusation of lying is despicable, when you're the accused. It's perfectly acceptible, when you're the accuser.

 
On October 8, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Anonymous Don Trombone said...

As a spectator, I think this entire discussion has been very interesting, but as a Christian, I'm appalled. I wonder if all of you really know Jesus and really spend time in fellowship with the Community Outreach Program that Jesus founded. It's almost as if you don't really realize the central teaching of Jesus' Way: universal, single-payer health care.

Anyway, Dan Trabue has the right idea: we have more pressing responsibilities before we decide to lynch Barack Obama for simply living in the same area code as William Ayers, a man who participated passionately in the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s, as did hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Before we decide on that, we must certainly join hands and denounce Oliver North as an evil madman who funded terrorism against a peaceful and democratically elected paradise in Central America.

(Certainly, if anyone ever produced evidence that Nicaragua is less than a perfect Eden, I'd denounce them for their crimes, but anybody who would present such evidence is clearly not a reliable source.)

We must denounce North, we must denounce Ronald Reagan for his support of North, we must denounce John McCain for accepting North's endorsement, we must denounce Abraham Lincoln for associating with a party that ended up embracing North, and we must denounce the Earth's magnetic poles that allow us to determine the direction of north.

But we must do more than that.

We must first recognize the totality of the crimes that Oliver North committed. I can't believe no one has mentioned the fact that Oliver North gathered DNA from the greatest military leaders in history -- Caesar, Napolean, Genghis Kahn -- to create the perfect leader for the world's foremost terrorist organization.

At least, that's what I remember from watching TV around the time of Iran-Contra. I admit that I've had the occasional acid flashback, but I couldn't have just imagined that evil, ruthless scheme, and we should all avoid the hypocrisy of denying the worst crimes of that monster, Oliver Judas North.

But we shouldn't just denounce North and his evil cronies.

What about Hiroshima, huh?

That's not some non sequitur, because it's always a good time to reflect on the single worst atrocity in the history of mankind. I've interrupted discussions on a woman's right to choose, on prescription drugs for the eldery, on affordable housing, on the NFL playoffs, and on organic gardening to reiterate that bombing Hiroshima was wrong. I've disrupted dinner parties, weddings, and funerals to force people to join with me to spit on the memory of Harry Satan Truman. And I'm proud of doing so, and you know why? Because I'm a Christian.

But even though our congregation at Great Society Independent Baptist Community begins each celebration service asking our Japanese American members to forgive us for our complicity in Hiroshima, I've come to believe that even focusing on that isn't enough.

We must look at the entire history of America.

Our country began with waging genocide against the noble and truly sinless Peoples who were here first, and we continued with the rape and destruction of the natural world that they had kept so pristine: not one tree died on this land before we got here.

We produced fraudulent documents about freedom, written only by rich white men, while we created the institution of slavery: never before and never since has one group of people ever enslaved another, and we deserve absolutely no credit for waging the "Civil" "War" to end slavery, because it never really ended. The fact that Barack Obama has to actually run for office is proof enough that the Black Man's plight hasn't improved one iota. No black man has ever been elected president, which proves that the system is racist just like statistics prove that any difference in outcome in jobs and education is the result of racism. But does the Man agree that the electoral college should have the same affirmative action that other colleges have? Of course not, because the Man is racist.

We waged wars on every continent to enslave the world, to impose our evil ideas about "private property" on people that clearly chose to have more enlightened societies. We've never apologized for our militarism, much less done the right thing and help bring the legitimate governments of Germany and Iraq back to power.

It's not just Hiroshima and Dresden: every act of war the United States has committed is a crime of war.

We're responsible for our attacks on others, and we're responsible for the attacks against us: yet we have never truly apologized for provoking Pearl Harbor and 9/11.

And though we're wrong every time we act, our inaction is wrong, too. We haven't done anything for Darfur, and we should.

And those are just the obvious things. I could go on and on about our thoughtless lifestyles, our daring to trade goods and services in an economy that's bigger than a single county, and the lack of love for the simplicity of the best tools of the farmer and the worker, like sickles and hammers, but I should summarize.

America is an evil and irredeemible cancer on this planet; it's a racist, patriarchial, war-mongering, bloodthirsty, empire; it is the beast and the harlot that Revelation denounces; it is a dispicable country that isn't worth defending.

Until we all joing together and agree on THAT, we can never have a reasonable discussion about which presidential candidate would best protect our national security.

 
On October 8, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Blogger Mark said...

LOL! That is a perfect encapsulation of Dan's ideology, Tom! I don't believe he could have said it better himself.

 
On October 8, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Perfect, except I have not advocated any of what he has said or stated any of what he said.

But as long as facts aren't a matter of concern, yeah, perfect.

You guys are just plain nutty. I think the stress of having such a crappy candidate and knowing that you're going to lose here in a few weeks in a landslide for what you perceive to be a monster is undoing your little minds, causing you to do a brain dump of whatever logic or reasoning capabilities (not to mention integrity) you may have started with.

 
On October 8, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Blogger Mark said...

Methinks Dan doth protest too much! LOL!

 
On October 8, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

Who is Don Trombone? Could be anyone.

 
On October 8, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

Whoever he is, this is not the place for a "my Christian faith is better than yours" back-and-forth. Welcome to the forum, nonetheless Mr. Trombone. Feel free to jump in any time.

 
On October 8, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

"don trombone" is just an anagram for

"Don't bore, mon"

The constant mischaracterizations and misleading statements of the McCain camp and his supporters are boring to most of us.

Don't bore, mon.

 
On October 8, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Anonymous Bubba said...

I see that Dan suggested earlier today that Ronald Reagan wasn't "especially conservative."

("Or Christian," he added, but never let it be said that Dan questions other people's faith.)

The assertion's absurd because he obviously doesn't know the first thing about conservatism, but at least he can appeal to the conservatism of his youth, unexamined as it must have been.

But now he's weighing in about our rationality and integrity, concepts about which he has even fewer credentials.

I wonder if there's any subject that Dan will refrain from addressing because of his ignorance.

Y'know, besides the question of whether William Ayers just targeted "stuff."

 
On October 8, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Don't bore, mon.

 
On October 8, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Anonymous Bubba said...

Good thing Dan Trabue isn't an anagram for anything amusing or, worse, menacing.

I mean, if it were an anagram for "BAD NATURE" we could have lots of fun with that.

 
On October 8, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Blogger Mark said...

I never was good at anagrams

 
On October 8, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Anonymous Don Trombone said...

Did you know the following is an anagram for "Hiroshima Truman"?

North: "Sharia? I Mum."

Is this proof that Oliver North kept mum about the Sharia laws that was promoted by the Islamic terrorists with whom he worked?

Well, it's good enough for me, and it's a good reminder that we should focus on issues that are more important than word games.

Issues like the evils of Oliver North and his work with Halliburton and Cyberdyne, to create a time machine and travel to Vienna in the early twentieth century, to corrupt a poor art student, so that student would take over Germany and cause the second world war, JUST to give the United States an excuse to target innocent civilians in Japan with the horrors of a nuclear holocaust.

Can you link arms and stand with me, and denounce Oliver North's abuse of time travel and his clear disregard for the Temporal Prime Directive?

If you're not too busy casting aspersions at the speck in William Ayers' eye, villifying him for writing strongly worded but nevertheless cordial letters to his elected representatives, can you denounce the Republican party for raping -- yes, literally raping -- the space-time continuum?

And, more importantly, can you repudiate a country whose cold, black heart is best represented by monsters like Oliver North and other white, male American soldiers?

Join with me and Barack Obama and renounce the United States as the most evil country in the ten-dimension multiverse, and together we can finally discuss the election rationally.

Then, we can decide who is best suited to lead this country, and insulate the rest of the world from the further harm that we would otherwise inflict on them.

 
On October 8, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

Okay. So is Don Trombone really Dan Trabue?

What was it Dan Tra... uh, Don Trombone just said?

"Join with me and Barack Obama and renounce the United States as the most evil country in the ten-dimension multiverse, and together we can finally discuss the election rationally."

Tongue in cheek, that 'multiverse' bit, but it jibes very well with Dan Trombones last major screed (and every other screed Dan Trabue has made) and that is Dan Trabue's belief that America is the most evil country on, and the very least, the face of the earth.

Now we at least know for certain that Dan hates everyone but Leftists. Dan would rather cozy up to Obama bin Shark-Sauce* than someone who knows when life begins.

-----
* ANAGRAM for Barack Hussein Obama.

 
On October 8, 2008 at 8:43 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

is Dan Trabue's belief that America is the most evil country on, and the very least, the face of the earth.

Except, of course, that I don't believe that. But I know it makes disagreeing with me much easier if you just make that crap up, so knock yerself out.

And, no, I am not Don Trombone. I believe the implication is that brave anonymous Trombone doesn't like me.

 
On October 8, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

What!? Have I misread Don Trombone? Was Mr. Trombone expressing sarcasm?

If so, sincerest apologies to you, sir.

 
On October 8, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

After rereading Mr. Trombone's first comment it would seem that his sarcasm was of such rare caliber that I did not catch it. I'm a pretty smart guy, even if I do say so myself, but this flew right over my head. Perhaps it was the heated discussion that distracted me and allowed Mr. Trombone's satire to absolutely escape me.

Again, sincerest apologies to Don Trombone

Whatever the reason. I owe Mr. Trombone a very large apology.

To you sir, I humbly apologize and beg your forgiveness. I should have read more carefully but did not. I am wholly at fault. I beg your pardon, sir.


To All,

I could just go back and delete my own recent comment calling Dan and Don 'one-and-the-same', but I have this one personal policy to which I assiduously stick-- except in terms of correcting grammar, NO BACKSPACING! If I make a mistake, and if it is clear to me that I have made a mistake, it stays there and I apologize. After all, it would be deceitful to delete my own offending comments and act as if nothing were amiss. That's not who I strive to be.

 
On October 8, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

UNLESS that mistake is towards someone with a different opinion than Eric has, that is. Then there's no need for apologies...

 
On October 8, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

Not true, Dan. Convince me that I'm wrong... I'll apologize.

 
On October 8, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Blogger tugboatcapn said...

Is it just a coincidence that "A Beard Nut" is also an anagram for "Dan Trabue"?

I think not...

 
On October 9, 2008 at 12:34 AM, Blogger Marshall Art said...

Dan,

My condolences at being the victim of an excellent lampoon by the mysterious Don Trombone. At the same time, you can take some comfort and pleasure in knowing that this satire is in the best tradition of an SNL skit, like the one found here, but which has mysteriously vanished from YouTube. Not everyone is honored to be so targeted. Kudos.

As to your support for the Sandinistas, you definitely give tacit support for their actions by decrying only North, the Contras and Reagan, while never mentioning the acts of the Sandinistas. You give support to them when you decry the actions of North and Reagan as illegal, when the actions were ongoing before Congress, who supported Ortega, decided to make it illegal. If one side of an action is fighting for their cause and you choose to support the other side, you take the position of deciding which side is moral or immoral in their actions. Your siding with the Sandinistas implied you saw no criminality in their actions, no negative implications of their acceptance of Soviet support, and thus gives tacit support for all they do. You've never made any statements, before now, of disapproval of their actions, while always framing the Contras and those who support them as criminal in their actions. And because the Democratic congress agreed with your perspective and saw fit to side with Ortega and outlaw support for his opponents, you put law above morality. Reagan and North acted on good intentions in the manner of David taking food from the temple to feed his starving troops. Both Reagan & North and David acted against the law, but not against good intentions. Another example would be Rosa Parks taking a front seat. As stated, you condemn Reagan and North because you don't like them, and as such, your depiction of those events is less than honest, as is your denying your tacit approval of Sandinista crimes.

 
On October 9, 2008 at 4:56 AM, Anonymous BenT - the unbeliever said...

For me the Ayers conspiracy theory boils down to the idea that decades ago Obama met Ayers and was supportive of his ideas and plans and goals, but already knew so much about his future political path that he knew he had to hide and obfuscate any approval he had of Ayers or Ayers's past actions.

It is simply an unbelievable statement. If Barack Obama is some secret left-wing social/maoist radical then way back when he was in high school he knew so much about his future that he decided to hide his true opinions. Because no one from his past has come forward to say he ever advocated any radical ideas. No classmates from Harvard. No articles or editorials from the days when he worked on the Harvard Law review. No one from Chicago.

I find the whole supposition untenable.

 
On October 9, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Marshall said:

If one side of an action is fighting for their cause and you choose to support the other side, you take the position of deciding which side is moral or immoral in their actions.

You all continue to astound with your incredibly naive, one-way, black/white thinking.

Does it not cross your mind that in opposing the illegal actions of North which helped result in the deaths of tens of thousands that I am merely opposing illegal actions that result in the deaths of tens of thousands without necessarily "siding" with the Sandinistas? That I can somehow manage to recognize and acknowledge that the Sandinistas had their flaws and atrocities, too, but that nonetheless, their flaws and atrocities do not make our atrocities right?

As my momma used to say, two wrongs don't make a right.

Come on, fellas, use your heads. There are more than two options (If you oppose North, then you must support the Sandinistas).

 
On October 9, 2008 at 6:07 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

This, I'd suggest, is the problem with your all's way of thinking - it's too simplistic.

"If Dan says that Wright is not a racist, well, everyone knows he IS a racist so Dan must be lying."

"If Dan opposed North's crimes in Nicaragua and Iran, well then he MUST support any atrocities and crimes committed by the Sandinistas!"

"IF Dan says that ACORN seems like a very pro-democracy type of organization, well everyone KNOWS that's wrong, so he must be lying!"

"If Dan says he has no strong opinion about Ayers, even though I've read enough to know he's a terrorist, then Dan MUST be lying!"

"If Dan can find fault with some US policy, then he must HATE the US!"

This is the problem, I'd suggest, with the whole Bush/McCain/Bubba/Neoconservative party: Simplistic, third grade thinking.

"If you ain't fer us, yer agin us!"

It's simply not necessarily so. And this is one of the reasons that the Republicans are going to take a beating this election - NOT because the people are too stupid to recognize that the Democrats have their problems (Lord knows they do), but because the Republican party has been dominated by this mean-spirited, hateful, third grade bully sort of thinkers and you can only bully your way to domination for so long.

 
On October 9, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Blogger Marshall Art said...

Let me try it this way, Dan. Your position on North and Reagan is akin to saying that FDR and Ike were responsible for the deaths of millions by fighting against the Nazis and supporting others who did. You hang your hat on the fact that some in our government supported Ortega and thus, due to their outlawing support for the Contras, that somehow that makes the actions of North and Reagan immoral for their support of what they saw as a just cause, because it was then made technically illegal to do so. At the same time, because technically, Ortega was "democratically" elected, that is, he maintained power after skewing the election laws in his favor, that he and his regime were now morally just. As suggested, you conviently side with morality when it's convenient and then switch to law when morality no longer serves. You find no reason to believe that there could be anything worth fighting, dying and even killing for while still maintaining the moral high ground. Your whole method of argument and debate is therefor fraudulent, that is, a lie, for their is no consistency whatsoever. Yours is a constantly shifting set of standards that serves only your purpose in debate and everyone here is on to you.

I'll take the position that you aren't quite aware that you're doing it, because to be the one who is wrong, or who has run out of credible arguments to support a losing proposition must obviously be a tough thing to face. But the equivalency you seek to posit between Barry and Mickey ain't working, because it doesn't float. As I don't particularly like the GOP candidate as a great choice for prez, I've no real dog in this race. Still, I can plainly see that if we're talking lesser of two evils, McCain is the man hands down, without question, and it doesn't take a political scholar to see what is so plain. YOU are driven by your personal hatred for the conservative philosophy and it's adherants (rhetorically speaking--I don't truly believe you hate anyone--at least I hope not), and you allow it to cloud your judgement. Wake the hell up.

 
On October 9, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Marshall still doesn't get it, saying:

You hang your hat on the fact that some in our government supported Ortega and thus, due to their outlawing support for the Contras

If you knew the facts surrounding this situation, perhaps you'd be better suited to make commentary.

The Congress didn't "side with" Ortega, but rather, they received reports (many from Christians who either lived or visited in Nicaragua and could give first hand testimony) that the Contras were, indeed, engaging in terrorism - raiding villages, killing and maiming citizens, "disappearing" villagers, etc - Congress took the correct step and said, "NO MORE."

They outlawed sending further US aid to support terroristic activities. This had not so much to do with "supporting" the democratically elected Ortega, and much more with standing up against terrorism.

When armed individuals raid farming villages whose "sin" was that they voted for Ortega, shooting and killing men, women and children, THAT is terrorism and it is wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Again, I ask you all for the sake of your souls, won't you at least stand with me and say, No More? No more support for terroristic behavior? That this is a wrong?

Why can't we agree on this very basic premise - setting aside whether the Sandinistas were a "good" gov't or a "bad" gov't - can't we agree that we ought not support soldiers who target and kill civilians?

We're all mostly Christians and US citizens here. This is basic to both and I am appalled that you would hold your partisan politics as a reason to disagree with me on this basic premise with which all decent people should be able to agree.

 
On October 9, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Wake the hell up, indeed.

 
On October 9, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Anonymous Don Trombone said...

I really wish we would focus on the larger issue of America's irredeemible evil, but if we're going to focus just on Oliver North and his support of the Contras -- while ignoring, for instance, North's violent efforts to capture and reprogram Number Five, a sentient robot who was created to wage war on Amerikkka's behalf but who gleaned the Better Way of peaceful coexistence -- let's do so, just so we can get it out of the way.

Marshall, if that's you're real name, Dan Trabue is absolutely right to call you on your indecency for disagreeing with us about the evils of Oliver North.

Let's review what we all know and should be able to admit to be true.

#1 Nothing you guys say is remotely credible. Whatever you say, if it's something we agree with, it's right because WE believe it, not you. If it's something we reject, we reject it because no so-called "evidence" you present in defense of your positions is credible. It's not credible because you present it, because you're not credible people.

#2 Terrorism is wrong in all forms. This should be obvious, and it's only your inhumanity that keeps you from admitting this.

#3 Bill Ayers isn't that bad of a guy. He make have been over-eager in his passionate participation of the antiwar movement, but what he did was just a little bit worse than spraying thought-provoking graffiti in the name of Social Justice. It was performance art, and any suggestion that it was worse -- that this peaceful, rather cuddly professor tried to kill people -- is appalling and not worth considering, because of #1: Nothing you guys say is remotely credible.

#4 Even if Ayers did some bad things, Obama and Dan and I denounce those things. If you want to say that our denouncing his "rough-housing" is weakened by our not considering these wives tales and fever dreams that you suggest he was worse than we think he was, or if you want to say that our denouncing is just the result of political expediency, or if you want to say that actions speak louder than words and Obama's long work with Ayers (handing out soup to poor people; you do care about poor people, don't you?) and Obama's actions prove he wasn't overly concerned about working with an unrepentant peace activist, you can keep that to yourself. Because nothing you guys say is remotely credible.

#5 Oliver North is a terrorist. This is universally accepted as true, as obvious and given as the law of non-contradiction. Oliver North's first book was titled, I Am A Terrorist, And No One Denies This. And when McCain accepted North's support, he referred to Oliver North as "that terrorist scumbag, who validates the worst accusations about our country, which is exactly what I want to accomplish for this nation, the Great Satan." Any suggestion you make that North or McCain disagrees with this assessment is meaningless. Nothing you guys say is remotely credible.

#6 No amount of context exonerates North. Nicaragua was a peaceful paradise, governed by a peaceful, honest, democratically elected government. It had nothing to do with the Soviets until North forced them to run their benevolent arms, and it never engaged in the violence, fraud, and propaganda that you rightwing warmongers always accuse your enemies of, probably because it's what you Rethuglicans always do. Even if it was right to oppose Noriega, Reagan and North had plenty of other, much better options: they didn't try to chose the "least bad" option, they deliberately chose the worst. They didn't try to constrain the Contras' worst tendencies, they encouraged them, even teaching them to grow long moustaches that could be properly twirled while they hatched their evil schemes. Nothing you can say can persuasively reduce North's guilt. Nothing you guys say is remotely credible.

Now that I've reviewed the basics, let's just agree to these basic facts like decent, civilized, humane Christians.

I don't want you to disagree with these simple premises, and I'm sure that Dan joins me in saying that it's disappointing that we have to denounce you as indecent, barbaric, inhumane apostates.

COME ON.

Agree with us on everything we say, or we'll have no choice but to continue to denounce you as simplistic, juvenile bullies.

 
On October 9, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Speaking of juvenile...

 
On October 9, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Anonymous Bubba said...

Dan, you grossly distort my reasons for why I think you're a liar, which doesn't exactly dissuade me from thinking you're dishonest.

"If Dan says that Wright is not a racist, well, everyone knows he IS a racist so Dan must be lying."

"IF Dan says that ACORN seems like a very pro-democracy type of organization, well everyone KNOWS that's wrong, so he must be lying!"


I don't argue that "everyone knows" Jeremiah Wright is a racist. I argue that the theology that he embraces is plainly and explicitly racist, both in name and in content. One cannot reasonably argue that BLACK liberation theology isn't racist, nor can one do so for a theology that almost literally demonizes the white race by calling it "anti-Christ."

I don't argue that "everyone knows" ACORN is anti-democratic. Instead, I appeal to the fact that its "direct action" is historically contrasted against the "indirect" mechanisms of representative government, that the term intrinsically implies efforts to short-circuit the power of the electorate. And, I appeal to its history of voter fraud -- in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, Colorado, and now Arizona. Any organization that so frequently engages in voter fraud cannot be reasonably seen as friendly to the institutions that are necessary for democracy, such as the basic principle that the ballot should be reserved for actual, living citizens of a given state.

My arguments aren't nearly as simplistic as you're suggesting. If you want to attack me for my supposed simplicity, at least get my arguments right.


And, while you're at it, you might want to consider being a little more careful in avoiding simplistic arguments of your own, such as this one in response to Marshall about your premise that terrorism is always immoral:

We're all mostly Christians and US citizens here. This is basic to both and I am appalled that you would hold your partisan politics as a reason to disagree with me on this basic premise with which all decent people should be able to agree.

You'll notice that you can't find where any of us have actually disagreed with or argued against that "basic premise."

We just didn't join your call to affirm that premise.

It's simplistic of you to presume our problem is with the premise.

Our problem could be with the passive-aggressive lying little weasel who's trying to use that premise to bludgeon the people with whom he disagrees, to accuse us of not being decent, and to question our committments to Christianity and America.

 
On October 9, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Blogger Marshall Art said...

"...they received reports (many from Christians who either lived or visited in Nicaragua and could give first hand testimony) that the Contras were, indeed, engaging in terrorism..."

They received reports from whom? The Sandinistas were reported as creating havoc to frame the contras. I choose to accept the reports of those opposed to communist supported dictatorships, thank you very much. This isn't about supporting terror as much as it is supporting one's president against unsupported allegations. You don't like the man because you chose to accept reports that sullied his reputation. How do you certify these reports? Do you accept them because a Democratic Congress opposed to the president says they're credible? I've looked into the situation since you've first made these allegations, Dan. I'm not without some understanding, and in fact, I find you overlook that which detracts from the morality of your position. I'm looking at the whole picture and find that Reagan's actions, whilst shakey from a political perspective, was not done to support terrorism, but to fight the terror coming from the "democratically" elected government. Keep in mind, that the British called the colonials "terrorists". This is what you're doing here as I read the story, and thus, your continued use of negative terms to describe the actions of North and Reagan are equal to lies. It stems from your subjective look at the subject when I'm looking at it objectively. As much as I'm a Reagan fan, I'm not married to the guy and would never back a supporter of terrorism. Neither he nor North was such a supporter.

 
On October 9, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

This isn't about supporting terror as much as it is supporting one's president against unsupported allegations. You don't like the man because you chose to accept reports that sullied his reputation. How do you certify these reports? Do you accept them because a Democratic Congress opposed to the president says they're credible?

As you should know by now (since I've pointed it out many times), I was a Reagan supporter. I did not accept them because the Democrats said the reports were credible. I accepted them because the reports were credible.

Christians I knew of were making these reports. The news media were making these reports. The Catholic church was making these reports. The reports came from many varied sources and what won me over eventually (even though I had to turn against Reagan, whom I supported) was that there were too many reports from too many sources ("liberal" and "conservative") that were too consistent in nature to deny.

This has nothing to do with "not liking the man," since I was a fan of his at the time. This has nothing to do with accepting the Democratic position because I was a Republican at the time. This has nothing to do with accepting the Liberal outcry because I was a conservative at the time.

I accepted the arguments because the facts supported them and I was an honest Christian man and had to go where the facts led - even if it led me away from my conservative friends and heroes.

 
On October 9, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Blogger Mark said...

What Dan is convieniently leaving out is the fact that Reagan and North were fighting Communism. Communism is an evil form of government which usurps the rights of the people and denies the people basic human freedoms.

One cannot condemn the actions of Communists and at the same time condemn the actions of those who fight Communism.

What did Jesus say? "He who is not for me, is against me."

Yet, Dan appears to be saying one can be against evil and good at the same time, just because sometimes good must use force to overcome evil.

There is no gray area here. Either you are against Communism or, by your refusal to condemn it, you give your tacit approval.

This goes back to the old argument of whether America spared thousands of more lives by taking thousands of lives when we dropped the bomb in WWII.

Sometimes one must take a stand. Even when that stand is personally distateful.

It is better to fight and kill in the name of Freedom and Democracy than it is to lie down and let slavery through Communism take over. In the end, good triumphs if the correct decision is reached, and evil triumphs if the wrong decision is reached.

North and Reagan made the correct decision. Communism (evil) was thwarted and Democracy (good) triumphed.

 
On October 9, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Anonymous Bubba said...

I would like to ask about the "honest Christian man [who] had to go where the facts led," where did he go? Why is he now so incurious about the murderous plots of William Ayers, the racist theology of Jeremiah Wright, the voter fraud of ACORN, and their numerous long-standing connections with the Democratic presidential nominee? Does he not have the courage to alienate another group of friends?

And I'd also like to ask, if he was originally such a staunch conservative, what really caused Dan Trabue to become such a knee-jerk Progressive, who not only rejects the ostensible conservatism of his past but now seems not to understand conservatism at all.

There were conservatives who quite upset with Reagan over Iran-Contra. Some of them were traditionalists who became paleocon isolationists who, like Pat Buchananan today, finds a reason to oppose pretty much every instance of the use of American military power, including its use during the Civil War and even World War II, but still affirm the essential goodness of America's culture at the domestic level. Some of them were fiscal libertarians who, like Murray Rothbard forty years ago, ended up rejecting all use of government force while still affirming the goal of a global free market.

But Iran-Contra alone doesn't explain a rejection of the morality and efficiency of the free market; the respect that ought to be accorded to traditional social morality; the belief in a hawkish foreign policy in the face of serious enemies; and the prudence of federalism, a separation of powers, and the goal of limiting the government to those powers enumerated in the Constitution as understood by its authors.

Either Dan's past conservatism was very, very shallow indeed, or there are other reasons for why those roots were ripped from the soil.

Until his conversion from Reagan fan to hard-left radical is more plausibly explained, I for one won't ever put much stock in Dan's probably meaningless conservative bona fides.

 
On October 9, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Sometimes one must take a stand. Even when that stand is personally distateful.

It is better to fight and kill in the name of Freedom and Democracy than it is to lie down and let slavery through Communism take over.


I've taken a stand. My stand is that it is always wrong to target and kill civilians. It is always wrong to engage in terrorism.

You all appear to be engaging in the moral relativistic, "Wellll, it's okay to use terrorism IF the cause is just."

You and the terrorists are welcome to keep that unholy position, but I will take a stand against all those who advocate it.

 
On October 9, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

North and Reagan made the correct decision. Communism (evil) was thwarted and Democracy (good) triumphed.

A little, "Sometimes you have to act against democracy in order to save democracy," Mark?

Again, as I stated earlier, this is why hopefully you all will lose this election. The country has had enough of this moral relativistic, "when WE do it, it's okay" sort of international bullying.

America is a great nation and WE DO NOT EMBRACE THE TOOLS OF THE ENEMY. We stand for Democracy. We stand AGAINST terrorism. And God does bless THAT sort of thinking, I'd suggest.

 
On October 9, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Anonymous Bubba said...

Dan, you twisted little liar, the only ones here who have accused Reagan and North of supporting terrorism are you and Don Trombone.

You all appear to be engaging in the moral relativistic, "Wellll, it's okay to use terrorism IF the cause is just."

The country has had enough of this moral relativistic, "when WE do it, it's okay" sort of international bullying.


No one here -- NO ONE -- has agreed with your allegation that we committed or supported acts of terrorism, and it pisses me off to no end to see you write so moralistically against relativism when you LIE again and again AND AGAIN.

It's noble to take a firm stand against terrorism in all its forms.

It's evil to slander your political opponents by suggesting that they actually endorse terrorism when they don't.

In a very real sense, you personally, Dan, regularly embrace the tools of the Enemy.

To the degree that you compromise your personal integrity to score cheap political points, you become a tool of the Enemy.

And a tool. Period.

 
On October 9, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

It's noble to take a firm stand against terrorism in all its forms.

It's evil to slander your political opponents by suggesting that they actually endorse terrorism when they don't.


Wow. I'm glad to finally see someone here say that terrorism is wrong. And add to that, that slander is wrong! Alright!

We agree, then, on at least that starting point. Or, at least you and I do, Bubba. Sorry you are getting all pissy about it, but I am glad to see you and I agree on this basic decency.

In at least this respect, you, I and Obama are all agreed.

 
On October 9, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

Obama, his philosophic ideals, and his ideological bedfellows are a cancer that needs to be excised from the body politic. Thankfully, that day is just 26 days away.

 
On October 9, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Come on, Eric. Bubba's done it. Won't you join Obama and us in saying that terrorism is always wrong?

Obama is a flawed human like us all, in need of prayer and support and love, but he is at least right in condemning Ayers and all other terrorism as always wrong.

I'm certain deep in your heart, you agree, too.

 
On October 9, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Anonymous Bubba said...

Dan, I'm not joining you in saying anything. You're a lying little weasel whose word is utterly worthless, and if you really cared anything about basic decency, you wouldn't constantly engage in these little games you like to play.

You are an utterly contemptible individual.

 
On October 9, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Nonetheless, I love you, ya big lug.

 
On October 9, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

Terrorism IS always wrong. Will you now join Bubba and I in condemning Obama's association with a known unrepentant terrorist? Will withhold your vote for Obama until he addresses his shady associations?

If not, you have neither right nor standing to ask us to do anything in regard to McCain.

 
On October 9, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Blogger Mark said...

I really don't believe Dan is as dense as he pretends to be.

However, Dan continues to equate William Ayres, unrepentanant Domestic Terrorist hater of America, with Col. Oliver North, defender of America against Communists.

I condemn Terrorism, also, but North and Reagan were not terrorist. Bill Ayres most certainly was. And still has the domestic terrorist mindset. And barack Hussein Obama still is his friend, despite the obvious conflict of interest.

A conflict of interest, that is, if Obama really loves America as he claims. I for one, have my doubts, and rightfully so, since he hasn't shown, up until now, any evidence that he does, beyond paying lip service.

One has to wonder what Ayres saw in Obama that would make him want to solicit his friendship. And one has to wonder what Obama saw in Ayres to want to befriend him.

What do the two have in common?

A deep and abiding hatred of America, Freedom, Liberty, and eerything America stands for.

Even if Obama is telling the truth when he says he "reveres" America, his friendship with Ayres casts serious doubt as to the reason he wants to be President. Ayres wanted to, and perhaps still does, destroy America.

Could it be that he sees in Obama his dream coming to fruition?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]