Palin fought corruption in her own state, which, need I remind you, was dominated by Republicans. Obama was a Chicago Daley Machine hack. Obama didn't fight corruption, he made deals with it. Tony Rezko, convicted felon, was his real estate agent.
The corruption I was referring to was trying to get an ex in-law removed the police department.
Source: http://www.newser.com/story/36605/palin-emails-complain-in-law-wasnt-canned.html
The funny thing is, I'm not defending Obama. Trying to prove he's corrupt does not dismiss what I am saying about Palin.
As for your ludicrous Dinosaur claim, did you rip that straight from DailyKos or is that just your imagination running wild again?
I made a logical conclusion about this one. She claims not to support the teaching of creation myths as science in schools, but believes in a 'debate'. Source:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3WBflzbmSu5l6zwOqAD92V3VQG0
Anyone who can think can see clearly she supports creationism. Why would someone advocate letting it be considered, when it has no credible scientific backing, unless they believed it themselves?
Also, funny that you claim my 'imagination is running away from me again', when you later claim to barely remember me.
None of these sources are left-wing. They're centrist, at best. Provide me some evidence that these people actually advocate something that is remotely similar to workers owning the means of production.
The day I hear someone say "her contraception failed, therefore comprehensive sex education is a categorical failure" is the day I'll put any stock against abstinence education. As it stands, you will never become pregnant if you remain abstinent, but stories of "safe" sex failing to prevent pregnancy are legion. Rape is a non-sequiter, as rapists do not tend to use protection. Leftists expected the "right wing," e.g. people like me, to turn on Sarah Palin. We didn't because we realize that parents only have limited control over their teenagers, and teenagers have a habit of making mistakes. Sarah Palin is no more a hypocrite for her daughter getting pregnant than would Obama be if his hypothetical teenage daughter got pregnant.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-06-24-abstinence-grants_N.htm Oh, look at this. Turns out that most of the US states think abstinence education is a failure after trying it out.
Leftists do not think we are capable of this nuance. A Leftist's view of the Right Wing is as a demonic caricature, not as a real person. Why else would the pregnancy of a minor be front page news in America's "Paper of Record?"
Perhaps some people feel it is hypocritical to claim you are 'family-oriented' when you don't pay enough attention to your kid to prevent them from getting pregnant.
George Soros is a billionaire socialist. He is very comfortable throwing money around to lost liberal causes like Air America. Moreover, your "proof" is a logical algorithm loosely translated as follows:
Corporations are rich
Rich entities cannot be left-wing
Therefore, corporations must be right-wing.
That only proves you didn't understand what I was saying.
If news networks were actually socialist, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. If, as your definition claims, socialism is everything controlled by the gov't, then why would they advocate it? It would ruin them.
I, however, have this
study.
Oooookay, this doesn't actually show that they are left-wing. Just that they don't like McCain as much as they do Obama. Considering Obama is a pretty-standard politician and McCain has long been considered an extreme maverick, that isn't really a surprise.
You have to look at the whole picture to get an accurate idea of left and right. For example, the rest of first the world would not consider any American politician left-wing. In other countries, the Communist Party regularly gets a nice chunk of votes. So, really, you're just seeing it this way because you are only looking at a narrow example.
Socialist: Any person who believes government should have as much control over economic and personal decisions as possible. Thus, a socialist policy will seek to nationalize all industries, especially those inextricably linked to health, safety, and well-being: e.g. Energy, Health Care, Finance, and Social Services.
Hahaha. While what you describe are loosely elements of socialism, they are not a definition. Socialism is the working class controlling the state.
. . . The Sodomy lobby . . .
Speaking of shooting yourself in the foot. Do you have any credibility left with anyone after a statement like this? I mean, let's be honest. You're not going to convince me, and I'm not going to convince you, ever.
The thing is, will we convince anyone else? The answer in this case is probably that we will only preach to the converted. The problem is that with such a bigoted statement, you've shown too much of yourself.
Why would anyone want to align themselves with someone so intolerant?
unions are now more about securing kickbacks than opposing bad labor conditions.
You got this one right. The US has no real organized working class anymore, which is why worker's rights are taking a real hit.
Oh, and while we're at it, can you define "capitalist" outside of "republicans" or "corporations" or "something I don't like?"
A capitalist is someone who owns the means of production. The definition of capitalism is an economy in which commodity production by wage labour.
The US is not a 'free market', as evidenced by the recent government corporate welfare (AKA buyouts). Every time the market is 'free', it fails spectacularly and has to be saved; the Depression, the 80s, and now.
BTW, Democrats are capitalists, too. You make the mistake of assuming that I am a liberal or democrat. I am neither. I call them all as capitalists who do not have the interests of the working class at heart.
Now, Define the Bush Doctrine. And no, do not use "pre-emptive war for oil." If you want to know what it is, I recommend asking
Charles Krauthammer.
It's the doctrine of pursuing American interests using military might. Charles Krauthammer is a very right-wing writer. Almost every one of your sources is. It is a bad sign when you can only find evidence from highly biased people.
I support fighting terrorism wherever it rears its ugly head. This does not mean we need to send the US Army and Marines everywhere, it means we must oust terrorist supporting states when possible and work with democratic countries to fight the terrorist cells in their nations. The US cannot reasonably invade everywhere, but they don't need to if terrorists have no refuge anywhere on earth.
So, what does it mean when we use terrorism? Who defines a 'terrorism supporting state'? Britain uses terrorism regularly. So does the US. So does Israel.
It's really about protecting capitalist interests.
Fact is, McCain got the Georgia-Russia conflict right instantly, Obama took 3 days to reach a carbon copy of John McCain's first position. McCain knows a KGB man like Putin when he sees him.
To be honest, Georgia invaded South Ossetia and proceeded to ethnically cleanse the local population. The fact that Russia invaded in turn was highly justified - just not in the west because it was in our interests to support Georgia, as Russia is a potential rival of the US.
The United States has used torture exactly three times since Sept. 11th to obtain information, all of which were before the Iraq war. The incidents at Abu Ghraib were deplorable and those responsible were punished. They violated the UCMJ, the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
There has never been evidence given that many of the detainees who have been tortured were enemy combatants. They have been denied trials (a violation of human rights) for years now.
As for torture, here's a source:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/us0706/ And another one:
http://www.slate.com/id/2100014/ More than three incidents.
Many perpetrators have not been punished. Or did you miss this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5253160.stm The perpetrators were not punished.
And here is a fun one Cuchonchuir: Define torture. then explain to me how I support torture under your definition of torture, citing examples of things I have written.
[FONT=Geneva,Arial][SIZE=-1]“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
—The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5 (1948)
[/SIZE][/FONT]
You support someone for president who supports torture. Bang. Done. Any moral person would not support someone who does something they find morally abhorrent.
Terrorists do not value their lives. Their sole goal is to kill you in the name of Allah.
You're confusing 'terrorist' and 'muslim extremist'.
Giving them creature comforts will not placate them. They will eat your meal, thank you graciously, and then detonate their suicide vest. You cannot reason with the unreasonable; the only thing they understand is raw, total obliteration.
Actually, this is patently false. Israel has used this tactic with great success. It undercuts their arguments that we are evil, while torture, mass killings of civilians, and inhumane treatment has the exact opposite effect.
Yours is the policy of Neville Chamberlain. How did that work out? Did we achieve "peace in our time?" Did Hitler come to his senses and realize Britain and France really only wanted to be friends, and that he should stop running over Poles and Slovaks and Russians with tanks?
Straw Man attack. Or truly not getting my point attack, not sure which.
And actually what's funny is that the reason Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler is that he knew the British Empire was not in a position to go to war. He purposefully stalled in order to give them time to prepare for war.
This is very similar to the air Battle of Britain. The British made London and other cities easy targets for the Luftwaffe in order to lure them away from their fighter production plants, landing strips, and radar facilities.
Adolf Hitler, Bennito Mussolini,
^ Fascism is an extreme form of capitalism. Fascism is the ruling classes attempt to reign in a growing working-class movement. BTW, the worst atrocities in China have been perpetrated after their shift to capitalism.
You give no numbers or sources for any of them, then make outrageous claims.
Here's a claim that's simply accurate: before European settlement of North America, there were (by a conservative estimate) 100 million natives on what is now the US. Today, there are approximately 1 million.
This is the worst genocide in history, perpetrated purposefully by capitalists. Yes, even the introduction of foreign diseases was used as a weapon, such as giving smallpox infected blankets to tribes after forcibly relocating them in the winter.
Another interesting tidbit; Hitler got the idea for concentration camps for enacting his 'final solution' from the (capitalist) British government, who used them in the Boer War. In fact, he named one camp 'Saxenhausen', or House of the Saxon, in their honor.
You may continue to live in fantasy . . .
Considering the rest of what you say after this is fantastic drivel, this makes me lol.
