Is that right? What does this say, on his website under "Crime and Law Enforcement?" http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/ No, they voted for the authorization to use force if there was a threat. But you're right in one sense, though, that they never should have voted for it as it required confidence in Bush's skills as a leader and his staff's skills on intelligence. This is the guy who appointed a horse trainer to head up FEMA. So yes, there is culpability on the Democrat side. Okay, what was his "relationship" with Rezko in your words? It's impossible to verify that as Opensecrets only has donor information for the current election. Yes, of course. Yes, Obama revised the number. He originally estimated about $150,000. Obama went to bat for people in low-income housing, yes. He advocated projects for them. I'd like to see your citation for this quote of Obama's. Yes, he bought a 10 foot strip of land from the guy. He paid much more than the asking price. Doesn't sound like it. Sounds like a fundraising bundler trying to ingratiate himself with a politician. McCain knows about these types. Nowhere in there did Obama do anything ethically wrong. Buying property off a guy for more than the asking price is not a crime, and he did that to reduce the appearance of impropriety. Well let's just agree that Obama clearly isn't Dick Cheney. Why not? 90% of Wrights message was a fine message, and he didn't go off the rails until after Obama went to DC. Why? Ayers is a professor and has never been convicted of any crime, nor has he hurt anyone. quote] A patriotic political party wouldn't nominate a man who protested Vietnam on the steps of the Kremlin. [/quote] On the contrary, I have no idea who you're referring to (although I have a feeling you'll tell us all) but it takes much more patriotism to object to injustice than to meekly surrender to a political party. McCain met with the Vietcong. Why was it wrong? Now you're drifting from patriotism into nonsense. The idea of CO2 markets were introduced by Republicans, by the way. Until they weren't. Well most didn't even read the Patriot act, and as for Iraq there's no question that we were decieved. And Republicans get upset when the Republican party is described as the White People's party. It is. [/QUOTE]
Muddying up debates and resorting to dirty rumours favour strongly negative emotions. I think the conservatives have an advantage there, because they take a starting stance/viewpoint of conflict, while others seeking considerations and mutual understanding get their attempts thwarted. Under a systemic observation...