http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23316912/makebelieve_maverick
There is no maverick.
How can you possibly stack up obama's personality flaws and sketchy past against mccain? Theres no contest here. McCain clearly sucks more.

I read it all. Some parts were kind of funny. Hahaha, that McCain. The problem is that most people are too stupid to read ten bloody pages about a candidate before voting for them and even if they do a lot of them are too damn stubborn/brainwashed to change their mind.

I read it all. Some parts were kind of funny. Hahaha, that McCain. The problem is that most people are too stupid to read ten bloody pages about a candidate before voting for them and even if they do a lot of them are too damn stubborn/brainwashed to change their mind.

I think this year dems will get some kind of "swiftboat veterans against kerry" payback.
The truth is, smears and guilt by association are pwning obama(rev wright, ayers), but facts are raping mccain.
http://www.keatingeconomics.com/??

My sister sent this to me and I read it last night, absolutely hilarious, but kinda scary. Just for anyone not interested enough to read the whole thing, and since I don't have the time to do it, might I suggest quoting the most interesting passages and throwing them in the OP? Might turn some heads...

Specifically-
-The Crashed Planes
-The Keating Thing
-The last parts about lies he's claimed recently
-Highschool
-College
-Womanizing
-Pulling strings with his name
-Anything else you think is appropriate

So he wanted to go to Rio instead of the Middle East? Big deal. He still got fucking tortured for his country while Barack was sucking on his mommy's teet. All this article says is that Dramesi is a better guy than McCain, but he's not running for president is he?

So he wanted to go to Rio instead of the Middle East? Big deal. He still got fucking tortured for his country while Barack was sucking on his mommy's teet. All this article says is that Dramesi is a better guy than McCain, but he's not running for president is he?

It would be commendable if they weren't trying to BS us the illogical conclusion that since he was captured and a prisoner, he somehow magically has leadership skills and qualities akin to a high ranking officer. Wesley Clark nailed him on this months ago but it keeps getting shoved down everyone's throats. "Military experience military experience military experience..."

Lame thread, lame OP.

Lets see...Obama:

-Reverend Wright

-William Aires

-Accomplishments? (LOL, ZERO)

-Where is his brother? Oh, thats right, he lives on $5 a month. HAHA good brotherly love!

-Muslim, but claims he is Christian, EVEN THOUGH he admitted he follows muslim faith.

-140 days on senate and then what? YES! Lets run for president gais!!!!

-Tony Rezko

I can go at this alllllllllll day and night if you would like :D

Lame thread, lame OP.

Lets see...Obama:

-Reverend Wright

-William Aires

-Accomplishments? (LOL, ZERO)

-Where is his brother? Oh, thats right, he lives on $5 a month. HAHA good brotherly love!

-Muslim, but claims he is Christian, EVEN THOUGH he admitted he follows muslim faith.

-140 days on senate and then what? YES! Lets run for president gais!!!!

-Tony Rezko

I can go at this alllllllllll day and night if you would like :D

1. Guilt by association. Logical fallacy.

2. Guilt by association. Logical fallacy.

3. He does what senators do. Vote. Why is that so hard to grasp your mind around? His voting record > McCain's

4. The brother thing on stormfront was completely unproven and yes, I've read that article. It was never in a credible source, it was one of those junk blogs like the enquierer or weekly world news.

5. He's not a muslim, and why do you give a shit if he is? True fanatics follow the same anti-evolution anti abortion anti-womens rights bullshit. Obama's platform is what it is and it's not faith-based and it doesn't matter what religion he has to pretend to follow in the united states of jesus.

6. See number 3.

It would be commendable if they weren't trying to BS us the illogical conclusion that since he was captured and a prisoner, he somehow magically has leadership skills and qualities akin to a high ranking officer. Wesley Clark nailed him on this months ago but it keeps getting shoved down everyone's throats. "Military experience military experience military experience..."

You're right, the only thing it proves is that he's really patriotic and loves his country. It certainly isnt the only quality a president should possess. But he also did a decent job in Arizona, whereas Obama hasn't really done anything in Illinois.

Hmmm...any asshole does have his *Good Points*.

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20081006

Though: he is just like Obama.

Eg: bought & paid for. Do you prefer a *Bought & Paid For* man on the Right or the Left?

Which?

Eg: Son? You gots to bend over...

http://blogalice.com/files/pyle.jpg

Guys like this could be POWs too.

Honestly, does it matter at all what the candidates have done in the past? In my mind, it doesn't, since either one will suck royal monkey cock if they get elected. They both have to move so far to the middle to get elected; they hardly are even different. I am 100% certain that either candidate will spend lots of money on shit that I don't want to spend money on, which makes them equally bad in my book. Goddammit, I loved you Ron Paul : (.

Too bad that most Americans don't read.

People are extremely fucking dense here. Everything we know comes from Fox, CNN, CBS, NBC, etc, etc.

The news puts each person in a little box, and it makes them equal in the eyes of the viewer. You can have a Holocaust denier and a WW2 historian in the two little boxes and they both seem credible.

The news serves as a method to get completely absurd views, and often straight lies into people's heads. And it's partially our fault for believing their bullshit.

-The Crashed Planes
So a while back I was reading a On Yankee Station by Barrett Tillman and John B. Nichols. I recall them coming to a point that during air combat maneuvers training F8 pilots did destroy airplanes, and although they were chastised for it they weren't permanently grounded for it, and were encouraged to be more daring but to learn the limits of the airplane. At the same time, F4 phantom pilots didn't do ACM training until later on in the war, when Robin Olds' advice really started to sink in. The Air Force didn't do ACM until after the war. Now with that in mind let me shoot some statistics from On Yankee Station by you, The air force lost 2067 aircraft in flight over Vietnam, the Navy lost 854, the Air Force's primary fighter at the time was the big, expensive, indispensable F4 phantom, the Navy was a mixture of F4's on the larger carriers, and cheap, "nearly obsolete" F8's on the smaller older carriers. The exchange rate for the F8 was also better throughout the whole war than that of the F4 phantom, for every six vietnamese aircraft they shot down, one F4 which went down, they shot down 3.38 vietnamese aircraft. These air to air stats were compiled in On Yankee Station from Navy and Air Force statistics.
The moral of the story is, that in order to become a better pilot, some pilots have to make mistakes in training -> to avoid them in combat. Plenty of F8 pilots made mistakes that led to destroyed aircraft in training, but as a whole the F8 pilots managed to wind up with a higher exchange rate, so the argument that he was a shitty soldier is thereby thrown out the window by the argument that because pilots were able to risk airplanes during training, when they did it in combat they were less likely to end up shot down.
Too bad that most Americans don't read.

My sentiments exactly, but in my opinion lolling stone is slanted to a point of near dishonesty.
In all honesty the debate annoyed me, because I didn't hear what I wanted to from either candidate for enough of the debate to really make a difference. Although mccain seemed better, except when he talked of buying up bad mortgages, the debate really didn't wow me, and obama ended up coming to mccain's side of slashing the budget, he hadn't mentioned it a single time (to my knowledge), until last night.
I don't think you have to read rolling stone to understand that federal power shouldn't just be thrown around, especially when its basis in the Constitution is a hot topic for debate. Yet the candidates don't seem to fully understand it either.

1. Guilt by association. Logical fallacy.

2. Guilt by association. Logical fallacy.

Wait a second.

You posted a link to that Rolling Stone article, which basically indulges in fellatious - err, fallacious reasoning against McCain left and right, and then you have the gall to call someone else out on "guilt by association".

Next week on the best-seller list, "The Audacity of Me" by Zay...

3. He does what senators do. Vote. Why is that so hard to grasp your mind around? His voting record > McCain's

You can hardly compare the two. Obama has almost no voting record and has introduced NO legislation to the Senate... but somehow he found the time to write two fucking memoirs about his undoubtedly accomplished and fulfilling life.

4. The brother thing on stormfront was completely unproven and yes, I've read that article. It was never in a credible source, it was one of those junk blogs like the enquierer or weekly world news.

Rolling Stone has had their lips on Obama's dick for months. They can't even give a good music review; do you honestly think they can deliver news, or anything other than a sycophantic OPINION PIECE, with a shred of credibility?

Fuck Rolling Stone!

do us a favor:

Go here: http://www.totse.com/community/profile.php?do=editpassword

Change your email address to randomstringofnumbers@asasdf.com and spare us the trouble of having to read such crap.

1. The Guilt by association comparisons aren't the same at all. McCain was involved in an actual scandal. Obama is assumed to be racist because he attended the church of a racist pastor and is assumed to be some terrorist because of something ayers did in the 70s.

2. Yes, Obama is inexperienced.

3. ad hominem. As parallax likes to say, that article could have been written by a gay albino black midget. The substance is still the same. If you can't get past rolling stones' "shitty music reviews" and filter the facts from the "fellatio" then you're just the type of boxed in voter that justanotherasshole is talking about.

All I've claimed in this thread is that obama sucks less, and provided links to substantiated attacks against McCain's character. NOT speculation about his ties to an anarchist hippy, muslim faith, or w/e. I didn't even claim obama is great. Draw your own conclusion. It's like the republicans aren't even trying. They chose the guy that lost against bush in 2000 and a hockey mom and are doing a half-assed marketing job. My own speculation is that the repugs want to lose so that a democrat can preside over the imminent economic collapse and they get blamed for it.

3. ad hominem. As parallax likes to say, that article could have been written by a gay albino black midget. The substance is still the same. If you can't get past rolling stones' "shitty music reviews" and filter the facts from the "fellatio" then you're just the type of boxed in voter that justanotherasshole is talking about.

See, it's just that you were bitching about some other guy's point not being from a credible source when you posted a link to a Rolling Stone article.

In other words, Rolling Stone is not a credible source for much of anything.

See, it's just that you were bitching about some other guy's point not being from a credible source when you posted a link to a Rolling Stone article.

In other words, Rolling Stone is not a credible source for much of anything.

There is no contradiction. Some sources are less credible than other sources. Sometimes a story is posted by an non credible source so it can't be verified, and sometimes verifiable facts can be posted anywhere. I can post on totse that the bailout was passed, and you can verify it from several sources. The national enquirer has even been right about a few scandals, but they post 99% BS.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2590614/Barack-Obamas-lost-brother-found-in-Kenya.html
Apparently the Italian vanity fair found Obama's long lost brother, yet there was no verifiable follow up. A google search shows other articles claiming the same thing but nothing recent.

John McCain's involvement with the keating scandal is undeniable, and he has made public statements on it.

John McCain's involvement with the keating scandal is undeniable, and he has made public statements on it.

You keep on saying that as though the article in question is an entirely non-biased piece and is only about the Keating Scandal.

In reality it is neither.

P.S. It is also not enough just to memorize logical fallacies and be like, "omg ur doin this!!1", although I know that's popular with the Internet crowd. Fallacious reasoning is fallacious for a reason. It's better for you to understand why it's fallacious and explain it to the guilty reasoner than to spit out some Latin words that you can't translate yourself, because believe it or not, sometimes those fallacies don't apply when they look like they should!

Don't be a script kiddie in real life logic.

Case in point: Apparently, I am guilty of "attacking the person" because I criticized Rolling Stone for being a non-credible source. Of course I could say that you are guilty of "appeal to popularity" for posting Rolling Stone as a credible source, but that would be just as ridiculous. We all know Rolling Stone is not an authoritative anything. "Ad hominem" would be if I made attacks on your character and attempted to transfer them to your argument. Instead, I said that your source is not a credible source for anything.

Similarly, it would be an appeal to popularity to say that Rolling Stone is credible because it's popular, but you have obviously not done that. Hell, we could say that it's "appeal to authority" to be bitching about anyone's citations being credible in the first place!!

Really, I should have asked why you linked to Rolling Stone, of all places, for information about the Keating Scandal.

See, it's just that you were bitching about some other guy's point not being from a credible source when you posted a link to a Rolling Stone article.

In other words, Rolling Stone is not a credible source for much of anything.

The thing about Obama's brother on Stormfront is unfounded.

I don't follow your logic that the Rolling Stone is not a credible source of information. Perhaps you could post what the article states that is untrue, unfounded, biased or dishonest instead of asking us to assume it must be b/c you think so.

Perhaps you could post what the article states that is untrue, unfounded, biased or dishonest instead of asking us to assume it must be b/c you think so.

I shouldn't have to explain Rolling Stone's bias to you. Any magazine that features Barack Obama's face in a Che Guevara pose on the cover with slogans like "hope for America" has an obvious political slant. (Am I the only one who saw that issue?) I'm not claiming that there are any untrue facts in the article, just that Rolling Stone is obviously biased towards Barack Obama and as such, it makes your argument look weaker when you use it as a source for your points, especially when there are much classier news sources out there with information about the Keating scandal.

What I'm wondering about is why Zay would link to Rolling Stone as a source of anything when there are much better and less obviously slanted sources about the Keating Five out there. That's all.

Also, in case you didn't click the link, it's not unfounded. According to the Telegraph, he exists and is really Obama's half-brother and is also ridiculously broke all the time. I, at least, consider the Telegraph to be a fairly reliable source of news.

So in case I lost you:
Rolling Stone is not a liar. Rolling Stone is just biased. If what you want is really just pure information, why would you want to use such a biased source? I am questioning the motive because Zay is questioning the credibility of other people's sources - even though, apparently, the Stormfront post was not "unfounded" because this dude actually exists!

3. He does what senators do. Vote. Why is that so hard to grasp your mind around? His voting record = McCain's



fixed

I shouldn't have to explain Rolling Stone's bias to you. Any magazine that features Barack Obama's face in a Che Guevara pose on the cover with slogans like "hope for America" has an obvious political slant. (Am I the only one who saw that issue?) I'm not claiming that there are any untrue facts in the article, just that Rolling Stone is obviously biased towards Barack Obama and as such, it makes your argument look weaker when you use it as a source for your points, especially when there are much classier news sources out there with information about the Keating scandal.

What I'm wondering about is why Zay would link to Rolling Stone as a source of anything when there are much better and less obviously slanted sources about the Keating Five out there. That's all.Classiness is not accuracy or totality. Sometimes, non-mainstream sources do get it right.

Even if you dispute that, to be intellectually unbiased, you should examine the points risen by a source that is considered less-than-reputable, in order to account for your own possible bias.

Even if you dispute that, to be intellectually unbiased, you should examine the points risen by a source that is considered less-than-reputable, in order to account for your own possible bias.

Okay, that's true.

I take most of what that fag rag Rolling Stone says with a grain of salt. They're merely the mouthpiece of the youthful section of the DNC.

I shouldn't have to explain Rolling Stone's bias to you.

No, you should be able to attack the argument and not the source. You said you believe the information is correct in the article, and that is all that matters.

If you feel it is incorrect, or unfounded....feel free to engage an actual argument instead of ad hominem.

The report on Stormfront was challenged as UNTRUE, to give you some prespective on the differences between questioning Stormfront, and questioning Rolling Stones.

I found something that seems to show McCain might be a fagot. Weird when you read this.

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video/Keating-Letter.jpg

http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/trail-times/2008/Oct/09/mccain-and-keating-till-death-do-us-part-1/


"I'm yours till death do us part." :eek:

Ewwwwwww that sounds pretty close. Like fagot close.

:eek:

Maybe a faggot maybe not.

What is a fact is this means McCain has a strong personal, as well as political, connection with Keating.