McCain / Palin inciting violence against Barack Obama.

I said the cheers from the crowd in support of his comment.

 

And since it matters what the supporters in the audience say or do,,
http://www.scoopthis.org/2008/09/mccain-supporter-attacked-at-obama-rally/

 

Did you see me say hypocrites?
They don't run as a party of family values becasue they obviously have none, not when Obama wants to kill already born children.
No matter what anyones view is on abortion no one beats Obama on it, I have yet to hear any other politian on either side ever say children outside the womb could be murdered, that children were a punishment, and babies are non persons. I will not vote for anyone who hates children this much.

 

LeBuick, you've finally done it.

You've made a clean break from reality.

Let me see if I've got your points straight:

• McCain supporters wish to do violence to Obama, since LeBuick heard one holler some inappropriate stuff. Futhermore, all supporters and McCain himself feel that way.
• Obama supporters, though in theory could be capable of such, actually aren't...because LeBuick hasn't heard one of them say such.
• Therefore, wanton violence and racism is a conservative trait.

Is that about it?

 

Rachel Maddow is a partisan hack who was made famous by her buddy Keith Olbermann, a partisan hack. Neither are fit to be labeled "journalist" since neither know what journalism is.

To claim McCain/Palin is inciting violence is ridiculous and baseless. And it makes independents like me loathe the left and really start to believe that there actually is a media bias out there.

There is no question that people are angry about Obama for legit and illegit reasons. But to say that McCain and/or Palin are directly responsible for such acts is as ridiculous as blaming this summer's church shooting on "liberal left" which is what one mentally starved idiot did here in my town.

The recklessly abandoned way in which Obama's worshippers continue to gulp Kool Aid is absolutely pathetic.

 

If I holler in a crowd, "KILL RBELL" it is safe to assume everyone who cheers and urges me on feels like I do.

 

I agree McCain did nothing wrong but Palin comment about "palling around with terrorist" was on a different scale and seems to be the root of this tree. I am not saying she generated the emotions or feelings but she certainly set a new tone for her rallies. Don't blame her though, she did what she was told to do in her role as attack dog.

 

If theres also a speaker at the time, how can you, in reality, possible know who they are cheering on and not the spearker?
You can't.
Especially since the speaker has a microphone and all can hear him, and you do hot have a microphone and all (the entire audience) can not hear you in order to cheer you on.
So no, it would never be safe to assume something so dumb.

 

Obama inciting, instructing violence against republican voters

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/09/17/politics/p185733D40.DTL&type=politics

Now if someone did something like this to me, I would have no doubt it was an act of violence. As would anyone here locally, I don't know about where any of you come from, but here getting in somones face is violence.

 

Now that was one funny post. I think you're trying to hard to defend these rallies that you're loosing sight of sound reasoning.

 

Rachel Maddow is my favorite political commentator. I first heard her on primary nights on MSNBC when I would flip between the three news channels. She is the reason that I got a subscription to Air America so I could listen to her radio show and then started listening to other Air America radio shows, also.

I also like Keith Olbermann. My wife likes him, too, and she is non-political.

 

She may be non-political...but he ain't.

 

It's not playing "the race card" when supporters of McCain/Palin yell out terrorist and kill him when Obama's name is mentioned.

This could get very ugly. I think Senator Obama is handling the situation in an admirable way.

 

You don't know who is doing that, and I don't either. It is completely unacceptable. But I don't know anyone who defends that, and you probably don't either.

Yes, if Obama gets elected it will get ugly and it won't have to do with race riots. It will have to do with policy. You don't get it.

If he were admirable, he wouldn't hold the positions he holds. If he were next to admirable, he would withdraw from the race. This guy is bad for America. As bad as McCain is, Obama is worse. And were it not for the SCOTUS, I wouldn't care. But giving Obama 2-4 lifetime appointments solidifies the wrong direction for America. It is unconscionable that anyone supports him.

 

How's this for ugly... How can anyone vote for a guy that thinks this should be legal.... And yes it is shocking,.... but something has to shock these people who thinks it is OK to murder babies.



Obama and his ilk have incited violence against innocent children nationwide...

Hell is not hot enough for baby murderers and those that support a woman's right to choose to murder her baby.

 

I posted this in another forum. The justices that are considering retirement are all liberal justices. If they all retire and if President Obama should replace them with other liberal justices, the net result would be no change with Justice Roberts still the Chief Justice. I admire him quite a bit. It is unconscionable that anyone supports continuing the unjust war in Iraq and destroying America's economy. Why didn't we just go after the terrorists after 9/11? They were and still are in Afghanistan or neighboring Pakistan, not Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was strictly a move by the Neo-Con associates of Bush to secure American world supremacy. They said that in writing years before 9/11. It had nothing to do with 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction. It had everything to do with their objective of "Pax Americans." McCain will continue this war ad infinitum. At one point he said we would be there for 100 years. Personally, I don't think America will be powerful enough to maintain the occupation that long with all the damage Bush has done to it.

 

I see theres no comment on this act of violence and terror that Obama and those like him support, approve and encourage.

 

This would not be good however. We need a more strict court, not a continuation of the status quo. Furthermore, Scalia, who is easily one of the brightest minds on the court, is said to be considering retirement.

There is considerable debate about whether the war was unjust. But having started it, we should finish it by leaving a stable Iraq, which seems in the sights. I don't think anyone wants to continue destroying America's economy. The question is whose plan is best to address it. Obama is more liberal spending, throwing money at problems when money has never worked before. McCain is less liberal, throwing less money (though still too much) at problems.

We did and we are. You have been deceived if you think we didn't and aren't.

Um, no.

I think you need to go back and consider the whole discussion, rather than simply picking up a liberal talking point.

The fact is that we have to end the war in the right way. Obama himself finally admits that after he won the primary. He knows (and knew) all along that his primary promises would not work and won't be kept.

 

An area where I think that government can help in the area of reducing the number of abortions, barring a repeal of Roe v. Wade which isn't likely in the foreseeable future regardless of who is president, is to encourage women to carry their baby to term and then give him/her up for adoption. Generous tax credits for the adopting parents and government assistance to low income expectant mothers could help a lot in this area, in my opinion.

 

Amen! Amen!