WOW! All of that for a response to a 4-sentence, clear-cut post. Talk about logically-challenged. If you got all of THAT out of my one statement……….I would like to think you are some other kind of “challenged”.

But for everyone who got lost in his/her “psycho-babble/something I heard on tv/orange-apple analogies” rant, allow me to bring you back to the focus of the conversation between badlybehaved and I.

The gist of the conversation was badlybehaved asking me “Do the Obama relationships with Ayers, Acorn, and Wright raise any red flags for me?

My response was:

” Yes……… about as many that were raised when I learned of the relationships between John McCain and George Bush (war criminal), George Bush Sr. (war instigator), and Carl Linder (terrorist funder).”

Let me break this down for the “unable to read between the adult liners”:

1. Yes, it raises flags.
2. It also raised flags when I learned of the relationships between John McCain and George Bush (war criminal), George Bush Sr. (war instigator), and Carl Linder (terrorist funder).”

It’s not that complicated (even though some over zealous posters may want to make it SEEM that way.)

ALL POLITICIANS have questionable associations, does that affect their ability to govern? I don’t think so. That is MY opinion.

People that are against Barack Obama sometimes get so hung up in their hate for him (the rotten apple) that they forget about the rest of the fruit in the basket. If you are going to GO THERE then LET’S DO JUST THAT! Don’t talk about the Ayers and not mention the Linders, or the Lewinskys, or the Watts, or the Deavers in presidential histories.

So IndieDogg, if that post was supposed to be a shot at me, It really wasn’t, because all that you mentioned had absolutely nothing to do with my 4 sentence post. You said those things, not me.

Hmmmmmm…….maybe those are things that you really think about John McCain.

~Roza

That response makes about as much sense as a playground rejoinder: “Yeah, I know about apples. But what about oranges!!!!!”

Your man Obama votes far more in lockstep with his party than does John McCain. In fact, John McCain’s Senate career (which he’s actually had, so we can judge his record) is notable in many respects but, significantly, for his tendency to go his own way, even if it leads him across the aisle and even if it angers his party and his president. Every non-partisan group that has looked as the issue has confirmed the same thing. It’s public knowledge. The McCain is a Bush Clone crap just doesn’t stick. Because it’s hogwash.

Perhaps nobody remembers this but, among political junkies, there was talk last time around about the possibility of talking John McCain into switching parties and running on the national ticket as a Democrat. That’s how disaffected he was with his own party at the time. Now you want us to believe the “relationship” between John McCain and George Bush makes John McCain a war criminal (by association)? You need to repackage that snake oil or go try to sell it somewhere else.

I suspect that John McCain barely knew this George Bush before he was elected President and I doubt if they’ll be playing much golf after George leaves office. To suggest that they’re friends is a stretch. To suggest that they’re interchangeable Dopplegangers for each other is simply delusional. You can dislike McCain for whatever reason you choose, but not because he’s a Xerox of George Bush.

Meanwhile, you dismiss the long and close relationship of your candidate with someone who’s actually been involved in setting off a bomb in the U.S. Capitol.

I know, you want to talk about oranges.

The rest of us want to figure out what’s rotten at the core of this apple, first.

And, I agree with Talk2ThePaw (great name). I believe Bill Clinton was being honest on The View but he also paid John McCain the greatest respect and, if you’ll note, he said he was supporting Obama because “I’m [he's] a loyal Democrat.” But he didn’t say anything specific about the candidate Obama to recommend him, while giving specific credit to John McCain for making it possible for Clinton, as President, to normalize relations with Vietnam. And, second, he mentioned that John McCain had done something (speaking of his POW years) that most of us couldn’t do or couldn’t imagine doing (paraphrasing — forgot the exact words).

And he laid the groundwork (very subtly, like a political surgeon) for people to vote for McCain/Palin because Palin is on the ticket, without having to justify themselves. He made a great case for the complexity of the voting decision and specifically mentioned the NY feminist who wrote the article recently saying she was voting McCain/Palin because she believed gender, for her, was the most important issue in this election.

He did a helluva a job. I take back (some/most) of what I’ve said about him (recently).

The Clinton’s are not going down without a fight! Whohoo!!!!!!

You know, a decade ago I really resented him with the whole Monica thing… but over time he has turned into quite a statesman. HE really should be leading the DNC instead of the lunatic fringe currently running it.

He tells the panel that voting is not a simple matter and understands why people will vote for Sarah.

Baracko must be going Wacko!!

He is going down…

Go Sarah 2008!! Hillary 2012!!!