Jack Thompson Offers His Expertise to Sarah Palin
Jack Thompson Offers His Expertise to Sarah Palin
October 10, 2008
Q: What do you get when you cross a media sensation with a guy who loves to see his name in print?
A: A letter from Jack Thompson to Sarah Palin.
Facing imminent disbarment, the Miami attorney has written to the Republican vice-presidential candidate, urging her to take a stand against violent video games. And, of course, offering his own services in that regard.
In a letter to America's best-known hockey mom, Thompson writes:
The McCain-Palin campaign, with all respect, is missing the boat on this issue. I strongly urge your campaign to tell American parents that if elected you will present to Congress a bill that prevents the sale of adult games to kids while fully protecting the First Amendment.
I have this crucial, constitutional legislation drafted and ready to go. You will see voters flock to your proposal. The American entertainment industry’s assault upon our children and our values must stop, and you are the person to stop it.
Thompson's previous attempt at "this crucial, constitutional legislation," however, was declared unconstitutional in stinging language by a federal judge in Louisiana. Utah's Republican attorney general also dismissed a Thompson-drafted bill as a violation of the First Amendment. State legislatures in Delaware and Massachusetts have likewise passed on Thompson's proposal.
Full text of the letter after the jump...
October 10, 2008
The Honorable Sarah Palin
Governor, State of Alaska
Vice-Presidential Candidate
McCain-Palin Campaign Headquarters
Arlington, Virginia Via Fax and e-mail
Re: Federal Law Needed to Stop Sale of Mature-Rated Video Games to Minors
Dear Governor Palin:
Over the last decade I have appeared on more than 200 national television programs (Today eight times, 60 Minutes twice, Nightline, Oprah) alerting Americans to the public safety and health hazards posed by the video game industry’s marketing and sale of violent and pornographic Mature-rated video games to minors. Innumerable school shootings have been caused by these murder simulators, including those at Paducah, Columbine, Red Lake, and Virginia Tech. We are teaching our kids how to murder.
A number of reliable polls prove that 70% of the American people want a federal law prohibiting the sale of adult video games to minors. We are the only nation in the world that does not have such a law. The United States Federal Trade Commission has proven that major retailers like Best Buy, Target, and Wal-Mart are violating the video game industry’s age rating system. These brazen sales by these huge retailers are occurring in stores and via the Internet. I have sat in jail cells with these game-trained killers. I have sat in the living rooms of the families of their victims. Both sides in this carnage are bathed in tears. The video game industry is sowing the wind, and the rest of us are reaping their whirlwind. It is going to get worse. Columbine times ten is on the way.
The McCain-Palin campaign, with all respect, is missing the boat on this issue. I strongly urge your campaign to tell American parents that if elected you will present to Congress a bill that prevents the sale of adult games to kids while fully protecting the First Amendment. I have this crucial, constitutional legislation drafted and ready to go. You will see voters flock to your proposal. The American entertainment industry’s assault upon our children and our values must stop, and you are the person to stop it.
Regards, Jack Thompson
Comments
I wonder if he will be taken seriously.
--- Official Protector of Videoland!
twitter.com/mommydx
Jack Thompson, Atty., Atty., Atty. (as you call yourself)
Deciding which video games my child plays is MY responsiblility. Why do you assume that parents are so stupid that we cannot decide what's appropriate content for our children?
Surely a technophobe as yourself has played a traditional game of 'cops and robbers' or 'cowboys and indians'? Gaming is nothing more than a marriage between traditional entertainment and the modern technology of today. It's fun, it's exciting, and yes - being a multi-billion $ industry - it is definitely here to stay.
As far as soliciting Sarah Palin: As you must know, the Vice Presidential candidate is running on a platform of personal responsibility and less government. Personally, she may advocate more Conservative values - however, she has said herself that she will not help pass legislation that restricts the basic values of American freedom.
If you really want to help today's children - keep their moral compasses pointing North - there are many other established causes that need an active advocate for change. Try the Boys and Girls club, the YMCA, do something useful with your time...because this cause is not working for you, and its certainly not working for us.
And deciding whether a retailer can get away with selling a Mature game to a kid with no parent around is MY responsibility, and that of Congress. If you are a parent and don't really understand that what I propose is supportive of parental rights--to stop retailers from selling adult games to our kids behind our parental backs--then maybe we need to go to IQ tests before you can have a kid. That's a joke, but I'll make an exception in your case.
Jack Thompson, Attorney and You're Not
Jack Thompson, Unemployed and You're Not
Fixed your signature for you. ;)
"Mature game to a kid with no parent around is MY responsibility[...]"
... really?!
No it isn't, who appointed you as self-styled moral watchdog for the entire country? You'd like to think you have a right to dictate to the rest of the country what is good for them and what isn't, but in truth you have failed, spectacuarly and repeatedly, and the reason you have failed is because you cannot seem to understand the laws and ordinances that you so blithely throw around.
And where would the minor get enough money together to buy these games...you know these games are $50-$60 bucks each...from their PARENTS! If the PARENT is giving their child that much money to spend than the PARENT is responsible for finding out what their child bought with their money.
And deciding whether a retailer can get away with selling a Mature game to a kid with no parent around is MY responsibility, and that of Congress.
No, it isn't. It's my responsibility as a parent to determine what my kids see and play and what they can't.
If you are a parent and don't really understand that what I propose is supportive of parental rights--to stop retailers from selling adult games to our kids behind our parental backs--then maybe we need to go to IQ tests before you can have a kid.
I'm a stepparent and a new parent. And it isn't supportive of parental rights because it's taking away my right to choose what I think is appropriate for my kids. I think I'm a responsible enough parent to determine what my kids and stepkids can and can't play. If I think my 14 year old stepson is mature enough to play Call of Duty 4 (and we do, even with the M rating), that's my and my husband's decision. Not yours. Besides, my husband (an administrator on a COD4 server and member of a clan on the game) and I like to play these games, too. Why should a store determine that I can't have the game if they think that I might give it to my stepson or stepdaughter to play when it's me that wants to play it?
"And deciding whether a retailer can get away with selling a Mature game to a kid with no parent around is MY responsibility, and that of Congress."
BZZZZZ wrong. It isn't Congress' responsibility to raise children, and it sure as flying fuck isn't your responsibility or even right to have any say whatsoever about another person's child. Furthermore, I'm not sure if you are aware but the ESRB is NOT a government agency. Ergo their ratings are not legally binding in any way shape or form.
Enjoy your retirement.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
"BZZZZZ wrong. It isn't Congress' responsibility to raise children, and it sure as flying fuck isn't your responsibility or even right to have any say whatsoever about another person's child. "
This! Its not congress's job, its not your job Thompson, its no ones job to raise a kid, get that threw your head, maybe if you did, you wouldn't be facing permenant disbarment in 13-14 days.
Hey Jack, just a quick, honest question for you. Do you really believe a kid sitting in front of a flat screen pointing and clicking with a mouse (or joysticking and triggering with a controller) translates into the ability to load, aim, and shoot a firearm with real proficiency? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I just have always wondered when you call them murder simulators and trainers and such exactly how you think it works. I'm actually kinda curious what your take is. I mean, I can kinda feel you on something like manhunt on the wii. Using a motion controller to throttle somebody, that's a little creepy. But a mouse or a controller are a little, well, disconnected from the reality of firing a gun at least to me.
As to the whole training kids to be psychos, thing I'm gonna go with the decent researchers out there who've only really demonstrated a casual link between slight increases in aggression and gaming. Sorry.
You have no more right to determine what games kids play as a baboon has a right to defecate on my lawn.
Jack, YOU ARE THE BABOON.
Point of interest, Jack. Since the ESRB is not a government body, its ratings cannot be used for any form of government restrictions. This means in order to pass a law that prohibits the sales of "Mature" rated games, the government would need to form its own ratings organization. This would cost a lot of money. I really don't think that we're in a position to spend that kind of money right now.
Jack,
Speaking as a parent, I don't need your help keeping games that I deem unfit for my kids out of their hands. That's my job, and nobody else's. What you're proposing won't actually make it any easier for me to do that job, and it will actually harm the quality of games that I and my wife enjoy.
So, on behalf of gamer parents everywhere, keep your damn nose out of my parental responsibilities.
I got a signature for you: Jack Thompson, trapped in the 50's and you're not.
Or how 'bout: Jack Thompson, Wal-Mart Greeter and you're not.
I could go on about this, but it's already been done.
-Cougar_Leon
I regret to inform you that what you state is purely an opinion. An opinion which is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.
You claim to support parental rights when you in fact remove the rights of parents by transposing them to the state. Such a simple concept should be very easy for a lawyer to understand. The intent of a concept is irrelevant to the actual effect of a concept, while you may have good intentions it must be universally beneficial to qualify in this regard, your ideas and attempts at policy do no such thing.
14 days to go Jackoff.
Yaaay! Jack's back! Now I can laugh at him again! I've been feeling really low ever since GP stopped the anonymous posting, but now that he's here again, I can laugh at him all I want. And I only have to pay for internet service: no ticket prices! :D
Oh, and by the way, Jack: don't ever tell me what the f*%# I can and cannot allow my child to play. I may not be a parent right now, but when I become a father some day, I don't want some jackhole dictating what kind of media I am allowed to show my child(ren). That is mine and my (future) wife's decision, not yours.
Game on, brothers and sisters.
Oh, and it's worked out very well for me. I have led the charge to scare retailers into selling fewer Mature games to kids, and it has worked. I have been very successful in that. What have you accomplish, other than to pimp the alleged "right" of retailers to sell adult games to other people's kids behind the parents' backs?
Part of "American values" is not to sell adult products to kids. That has been an "American value" since before the Constitution was ratified. Sarah Palin believes in personal responibility across the board, sweetheart. You run a company that says it doesn't sell its products to kids, and then you get caught doing that, then you're RESPONSIBLE for that fraud. See above for my actual proposal, which is a means of punishing FRAUD, and then wake up.
Jack Thompson
Actually, no part of American Values is anything of the sort, particuarly when the definitions being used are defined by your own prejudice. In fact, the constitution has more to say about using prejudice to control speech than it has to say about regulating content of Media.
You are far more in contravention of the Constitution than you seem to think Video Games are.
I video game is not considered an "adult" product unless it is rated AO (Adults Only)
Get your facts straight, MORON!
Mr. Thompson, aside from Hot Coffee, that content that you constantly allege to DOES NOT EXIST. And we know, some of us actually hacked into the games you talk about to find out, and it doesn't. You've become so self-absorbed that you're actually believing those lies that you're spewing.
There IS no 'hardcore anal, oral sex and S&M' in GTA4.
There IS no 'gay sex content' in Bully. (Kissing for 3 seconds does not equal sex)
The goal for the games IS NOT 'kill everything.' It's 'do what you want.'
The games DO NOT utilize virtual reality technology.
And lastly, the game companies themselves DO NOT directly sell the games outside of the internet. There, you must blame the cashiers involved, because THEY'RE the ones actually GIVING the people the games. NOT T2, NOT Wal-Mart, the EMPLOYEE.
Learn how the world works before trying to defend it.
David "DavCube" Gagnon, Still a sane human being, and you're STILL NOT.
John I still think you're getting the retailer confused with the game designers and producers. You constantly go after the wrong group of people. The people who MAKE the games are not the ones SELLING the games as you claim. Your agenda is so full of holes you can't scramble fast enough to catch the shit falling through them.
Too much micromanagement on the part of government with large companies smacks of corporatism. Really, it's soft fascism. I don't want any part of that.
Easy loophole. Don't state that you don't sell your products to kids. Really Jack, are you even trying anymore?
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
Part of "American values" is not to sell adult products to kids.
No it isn't, the bible is readily available to kids of all ages and contains smut beyond count.
岩「…Ace beats Jack」
Oh, and it's worked out very well for me. I have led the charge to scare retailers into selling fewer Mature games to kids, and it has worked. I have been very successful in that. What have you accomplish, other than to pimp the alleged "right" of retailers to sell adult games to other people's kids behind the parents' backs?
You did nothing of the sort. What you did is bully and intimidate retailers, not "led the charge." Bullying tactics and intimidation are the only things you know.
And what I've accomplished, personally, is getting people on my blog the information they need on your activities to not take you seriously. I've also earned a Bachelor's degree, am currently working on my Master's degree, gave birth to a beautiful little boy, and helped my husband out with his two kids when they are here on the weekends.
That has been an "American value" since before the Constitution was ratified.
No, part of "American Values" is freedom of speech. You should read "The Day They Came To Arrest The Book." That was the book that made me think about how bad censorship was when I was in middle school.
Sarah Palin believes in personal responibility across the board, sweetheart. You run a company that says it doesn't sell its products to kids, and then you get caught doing that, then you're RESPONSIBLE for that fraud. See above for my actual proposal, which is a means of punishing FRAUD, and then wake up.
I believe in personal responsibility, too. But it doesn't extend to people like you telling me what I can and can't do with my kids. It's not the publisher's responsibility to protect the kids. It is the parents. It's our job to maneuver the kids through the world.
"Jack Thompson Attorney and You Are Not"
You're kidding, right Jack? Did you somehow miss the entire disbarment hearing?
How about we change this title to suit reality:
"Jack Thompson Attorney when another lawyer signs off on my work"
"Jack Thompson Attorney with no real legal power"
"Jack Thompson (neutered) Attorney"
"Jack Thompson attorney/weatherman/America's parent/caped avenger"
"Jack Thompson soon to be alcoholic"
"Jack Thompson Attorney convicted of 27 out of 31 charges of misconduct"
"Jack Thompson Attorney...but don't tell anyone I said that"
Jack Thompson, Permanently Disbarred in 14 Days
Jack Thompson, Narsasisstic Personality Disorder and You're Not
Jack Thompson, Forum Troll
Jack Thompson, Unemployed
You're kidding, right Jack? Did you somehow miss the entire disbarment hearing?
he probably walked out on that too.
岩「…Ace beats Jack」
Jack apparently unaware other attorneys able to use Internet?
"I have led the charge to scare retailers into selling fewer Mature games to kids, and it has worked." so based on what you've said your saying your a terrorist? Because don't terrorist scare people into doing what they want them to do? Oh I'm also basing this on your history of threats and everything to get what you want too.
So you use fear to make people do what you want? huh. Isn't that the very definition of terrorism? I'm just sayin.
Um, Jack? Rockstar doesn't run down the street and hand these games out to little kids...
-Cougar_Leon
1. Learn your values, and learn the CORRECT values
2. Take two does not SELL games to kids at all. they sell games to stores. STORES sell games to kids.
3. You havent scared anyone. Get off your high horse.
I wonder if he will be taken seriously.
Doubt it. One Wiki or Google search, and her opinions/choices could change drastically. For the better or worse, we do not know.
~Game on, brothers and sisters.~
If your an undecided voter, I hope this clinches the deal
You are assuming that Sarah Palin would take his advice. Palin doesn't necessarily share JT's beliefs.
“When men are most sure and arrogant they are commonly most mistaken, giving views to passion without that proper deliberation which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities” ~ David Hume
Do you honestly believe that two Fundamentalist Christians would believe different things?
~You Could Be Mine, But You're Way Out Of Line..~
Yeah, what a crazy belief... all Fundamentalist Christians see everything as black and white.
Not like you at all.
Oh, I agree that I see in Black and White. I just like my Black and White more.
~You Could Be Mine, But You're Way Out Of Line..~
Black and White 2 sucked, however.
Do you honestly believe that anyone with political aspirations would touch a soon-to-be-ex-lawyer with a ten-foot pole? And besides, anti-game views aren't a right-wing thing; they're bi-partisan. Republicans do it because they have erronously apply their religious ideals, and Democrats do it because they want to get conservative votes and make the government your mommy. Neither party is innocent here, and I doubt that Jack would refuse to "help" the Obama-Biden campaign given the opportunity.
You have to remember that this is Palin we are talking about here, not just Republicans or Democrats. This lady believes one of 2 things.
1. Dinosaur bones were put in the Earth to test your faith in God.
2. Dinosaurs and Man lived at the same time, and Dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark.
...and nothing existed more than like 8,000 years ago. Neither the ideas that the majority of the American people accept, nor logic. 1. I want not a God that test me when I hold true and faithful. 2.
"Don't fall in love with politicians, they're all a disappointment. They can't help it, they just are." -Peggy Noonan
"Mothers all want their sons to grow up to be president, but they don't want them to become politicians in the process." -John Fitzgerald Kennedy
"And if we now cast our eyes over the nations of the earth, we shall find that, instead of possessing the pure religion of the Gospel, they may be divided either into infidels, who deny the truth; or politicians who make religion a stalking horse for their ambition; or professors, who walk in the trammels of orthodoxy, and are more attentive to traditions and ordinances of men than to the oracles of truth." -Samuel Adams
Governor Palin is political conservative. Jack Thompson long ago convinced me that he is a political liberal, pretending to be a conservative.
--Verbinator
The problem is, once you go far enough left, you come back around to the far right. The spectrum is more like a circle, and it's kind of like discovering that time-space could wrap around itself.
As you go left, in terms of being liberal, you believe in more personal freedoms. But go too far to the left, and you start believing that the personal freedoms of others are as important or moreso than your own.
I can see you aren't really familiar with either side of the extreme. Here, let me help: Far Left=Communism, Far Right= At or near anarchy.
Other way around there Dark, but point made, and hopefully one any intelligent human gets.
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
She's not a conservative.. did you know she carries round coloured cue cards to remind her what her ideologies are?
Well she IS a self described "hockey mom" and heavily christian... That's like one of Jack's primary demographics; along with politicians that are currently desperate for voters. She may very well be ignorant enough to actually listen to him; assuming she actually reads the letter... Lets just hope her tendency to read letters from such people is on the same level as her tendency to read national news magazines and pay attention to what's going on outside of alaska.
Please. Do you seriouslly think that she doesn't read national magazines? Do you seriously think that Christians want video games censored? Do you even know what a "conservative" is?
Well i was mostly joking... but much of what she has said in her few times in front of the media ends up really does call into question how much she actually keeps up with news that is not related to alaska...
Frankly, her hiding from the media has been a double edge sword... on the one hand she avoids gaffes and displaying her ignorance, but on the other hand in forces people to focus in on the few times she did go to the media and shove it under a microscope. When Obama, Biden or McCain screw up, people see it as an honest mistake because they do well in like 90% of their times when talking to the media... When you screw up only a few times out of only a few interviews people start thinking that those errors are indicative of their character.
And being a christian (though not a very devote to the point that i may be a bit agnostic), i know christians in general do not promote censorship but quite a few of them do and many of them are the kinds of people that Jack panders to with his attacks on games. Great how you jumped to the conclusion that i was trying to generalize all christians instead of just pointing out a minority that does exist amongst them.
As for what a conservative is... y'know, the line between liberals and conservatives seems to have become so blurred; just when i think i have it nailed down, a few loud liberals or conservatives show up to prove me wrong... though to the conservatives' credit, i do often hear people say that most of the idiots that call themselves conservatives are in fact not REAL conservatives (and i think they say that includes McCain)... Personally, i'd prefer to see moderates and bipartisanship and just skip the whole liberal vs conservative bull. See some cooperation and willingness to meet more in the middle. Unfortunately between Obama and McCain we ain't seeing that happening any time soon... a real maverick/change move would have been to pick a bi-partisan ticket; instead we got Palin and Biden. frankly i prefer the McCain i've been hearing about that ran back in 2000, before he sold himself out to pander to the right; he sounded more moderate back then... better luck next election
Give me a break. You want ignorant? Try looking up half of what Biden or Obama says. They've managed to bullshit their way through this election and the ignorant populace has bought it hook, line, and sinker.
I don't think she's been "hiding" from the media. I saw her interviews, but I also heard her radio interviews. Her limited media appearances smack of handling more than ignorance. McCain got his mitts into her, thought she was ignorant after all, and hid her to try and keep himself from getting embarassed. She isn't, though. That's just the line the Dems and their media buddies have been putting out.
Conservatives have not changed. Those calling themselves conservative has. "Republican" is in no way the same as "Conservative". McCain is not a conservative. That's why he was having such problems with both enthusiasm and support from his base. I don't buy the bipartisanship bull. People are blaming the Republicans, but the Republicans were taken out of power two years ago. The Democrats are in charge of the law making process. The Democrats have been the ones in charge of regulation. Look where it got us.
McCain is a moderate, and his actions tend to bear that out. Obama, on the other hand, is the most liberal person we have ever had running for president. His associations show this, his positions in Illinois show this, his record in the Senate show this. He ran for Senate on a platform of invalidating all concealed carry laws. He votes with the Dems 97% of the time. He's the farthest left on abortion that we've ever seen, and has promised ot help make tax-payer funding of abortion a reality. His healthcare plan is going to lead to the government taking over the healthcare industry. Obama can't work across the isle. McCain can, but Palin is probably the only thing keeping his base from voting for Bob Barr.
"The Democrats are in charge of the law making process. The Democrats have been the ones in charge of regulation. Look where it got us."
Not that simple, Bush can and has vetoed many bills the democratic congress have proposed.
----------------------------------------------------
God created alcohol so that the Scottish and the Irish could never take over the world. -Chris 'Jedi' Knight
Part of the problem with the current congress is the sheer amount of partisanship that has been going on. Any efforts the democrats have tried to make were being fought tooth and nail by the republicans... really the democrats hold the majority but their is still enough republicans to stop them from doing what they want... and Bush being veto happy doesn't make anything any easy. This is pretty much why the congress has not done anything because the democrats do not have enough of a majority and both them and the republicans are unwilling to meet in middle ground. Obama was part of the senate during this time, and time of such partisanship... frankly, i think if you only looked at the voting records of liberals for the past few years instead of their entire history, i think you'd find that ALL dems have been voting more left these days (and republicans voting more right). McCain as well has been voting along with Bush at very high percentages. Really whatever moderate positions McCain has had he seems to have sold off to pander to the right... until McCain actually starts promising moderate positions, showing a willingness to cooperate and goes back to acting like a moderate he just another right wing republican; and not much better than left wing Obama... it's funny mentioning working across the aisle since i think there has been a couple of times when when both Obama and McCain had worked alongside each other.
Pelosi and Reid, the supposed leaders of Congress, are almost solely responsible for the partisanship we see now. Neither ever misses a chance to blame the Republicans for each and every evil in the world. They absolutely refuse to compromise with Republicans on anything. The Republicans, in turn, feel no need to negotiate with them. The Democrats are the Majority. Their leaders can decide what goes to committee and what gets voted on when. If you want bipartisanship, then take a look at McCain and Obama. Obama- never reached across the isle in a significant way, never broken from his party on any serious issues. McCain- pisses off his party and his base pretty much every time he opens his mouth; in fact, of the two, Palin has been drawing the crowds and inspiring Republicans.
Bush is not the far right, he never was part of the far right, and as that retarded bailout bill shows (or should show, if liberals payed attention to anything conservatives actually believed in instead of villifying Republicans at every turn) the Republicans and conservatives stopped listening to Bush. They previously followed him because he was their nominal party head, even though many of them hated his policies, but no longer.
McCain is not a part of the far right. He's prone to bouts of liberalism that infuriate the far right. Bush is not part of the far right, that's just the line fed to the populace by the liberal imbeciles who run the MSM. I speak of these things with knowledge, as I AM a part of the conservative base.
Sadly, I am forced to say that if you want decent commentary on the race as it stands you need to head to Jib Jab.
What's happening right now in the race is that McCain and Palin are doing all they can to crystallize the base, rile them up, and get them angry at Obama (and thus distracted from the economic meltdown). They have people convinced, against all reason, that Obama's a terrorist. And by the way, speaking of that, this is what the prosecutor in charge of the Ayers case had to say two days ago:
*****
As the lead federal prosecutor of the Weathermen in the 1970s (I was then chief of the criminal division in the Eastern District of Michigan and took over the Weathermen prosecution in 1972), I am amazed and outraged that Senator Barack Obama is being linked to William Ayers’s terrorist activities 40 years ago when Mr. Obama was, as he has noted, just a child.
Although I dearly wanted to obtain convictions against all the Weathermen, including Bill Ayers, I am very pleased to learn that he has become a responsible citizen.
Because Senator Obama recently served on a board of a charitable organization with Mr. Ayers cannot possibly link the senator to acts perpetrated by Mr. Ayers so many years ago.
*****
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/l10ayers.html?_r=1&ei=5070&emc=eta1&oref=slogin
("Ooh, but it's the New York Times! That means the letter's obviously part of a vast conspiracy! Even though Palin herself said she learned about Ayers FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES!" Yeah.)
That same day, McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis -- best known previously for taking Fannie money until last month, and for saying "This election is not about the issues," admitted McCain wasn't talking about the economy by saying, "There’s very little a candidate for president can say and very little the president can say about what’s happening in the stock markets except hope that they correct themselves." In other words: McCain isn't saying anything because he has no idea what to say.
And also in that same conversation, Davis went on to say:
"In the middle of the greatest disaster in our financial system that we’d had in our lifetime, [the] Democrats in the United States Senate would actually link payments to ACORN in the bailout package that they promoted -- prior to Sen. McCain coming to town and actually blowing that package up."
Last week, McCain's campaign blamed Obama for the bailout's failure to pass Congress, saying, "This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country." But now they're telling us that McCain "suspended" his campaign so that he could sink the deal deliberately? The whole country's economy is at stake here, and he can't even keep his message straight on a critical issue for a week?
Since choosing Palin -- who even Karl Rove admitted was a marketing gimmick -- McCain has shown throughout this past month that wouldn't make an effective President. His behavior is all over the map, he pulls policies out of nowhere before they're shot down by his own side (check out his proposal to throw $300 billion more at home mortgages -- that didn't go over well), and by choosing Palin, someone completely unequipped to lead this country, he showed that all he wants to do is win, at any cost, like Hillary before him.
Obama may not be perfect, but he's the only good choice. He's been calm in this crisis. He's been steady. He's been rational. Trite as it might sound, he inspires hope while McCain and Palin openly inspire hatred.
If McCain were half the man now that he was eight years ago, he'd have my vote today. But he's not that man anymore.
Who's claimed that Obama's a terrorist? I certainly haven't. Obama has, however, shown that he isn't bothered by consorting with one, even though this particular one is STILL espousing violence. Ayers is a retired terrorist, not an ex-terrorist.
No, the New York Times is not part of a vast conspiracy. It's a far left newspaper. It should be read as such.
If you're mad at Davis for taking Obama's money, then you should be furious at Obama, who ranks second, just below Chris Dodd, in total contributions from Fannie and Freddie.
If Palin is a gimmick, then what do we make of Biden? He's a well known gas bag from the Senate whose only real qualification for being on the Vice Presidential slot is that he has foreign policy expierience (not good judgement, certainly, since he's been both wrong on the Cold War and the Iraq war in all ways possible). Palin at least rallies the base, and detracts from the revulsion the base has towards McCain.
Obama is the farthest-left candidate in history. He has no real accomplishments. He is a master of spin, certainly, but he has no qualification beyond that. He stayed calm in a crisis, but he didn't seem to know what to do. He hasn't been rational, but a coward. He takes no risks. He inspires hatred against the Republicans, certainly. If elected, he would be a rubber stamp for Pelosi. There is no real reason to vote for him on policy unless you are a far-leftist too, since most of his current talk doesn't match up with his recent past (for instance, part of his platform for the Senate race was that he would invalidate concealed carry laws).
Obama has, however, shown that he isn't bothered by consorting with one, even though this particular one is STILL espousing violence. Ayers is a retired terrorist, not an ex-terrorist.
Still espousing violence? He's a college professor. The closest he's come to espousing violence was a comment in an interview in 2001 that reads "I feel we didn't do enough". By which he reportly meant "didn't do enough to oppose the Vietnam War" not didn't blow up enough stuff".
So he's definately a former terrorist. He might be unapoligetic, and unrepentant, but he is not currently espousing violence, nor practicing it himself.
I'm not surprising that Obama isn't bother by consorting with him. The amount of "consorting" is minimal, and Ayers wasn't doing anything wrong at the time. This is just a desperate attempt at guilt by association.
-Gray17
He specifically said that he wished he had set more bombs. He also recently ran a political cartoon saying "Violence is not NECESSARILY the answer".
Ok, got links to prove those statements?
-Gray17
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63
Read the whole piece.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/in-a-not-remote.html
Ayers is trying to cover his ass here. His activities during the Vietnam war don't count as terrorism only by the loosest of standards. Thus, "doing more" during that time period would have meant planting more bombs, since that was how he was trying to "stop the war".
Ok, I'll give you the "necessarily violence" on as I hadn't tracked down the comic itself. As for the rest, you haven't given me anything new. Just more insistance that the "didn't do enough" comment absolutely means that he didn't plant enough bombs back then, and therefore he's still espousing violence as the answer to current problems.
-Gray17
"Obama is the farthest-left candidate in history"
In America? Maybe. He's probably still more right wing than David Cameron of the Tory party here in the UK. Ain't politics fun?
http://theweaselking.livejournal.com/3048562.html
Ayers is a non-issue. To judge someone on the company they keep rather than the way they act or the things they believe in is to judge a book by it's cover.
Please try to read into each candidates' policies and beliefs, and not parade non-issues about them like they matter: it's exactly what the McCain camp is doing. McCain's falling behind in the polls, so the Reps in his camp begin to use swiftboat tactics; it's a move of desperation, and I'm telling you now: it won't work.
Game on, brothers and sisters.
Give me a break. You want ignorant? Try looking up half of what Biden or Obama says. They've managed to bullshit their way through this election and the ignorant populace has bought it hook, line, and sinker.
I have, and right now Biden and Obama are still clocking it at less bullshit than McCain and Palin.
I don't think she's been "hiding" from the media. I saw her interviews, but I also heard her radio interviews. Her limited media appearances smack of handling more than ignorance. McCain got his mitts into her, thought she was ignorant after all, and hid her to try and keep himself from getting embarassed. She isn't, though. That's just the line the Dems and their media buddies have been putting out.<
So if she's so knowledgeable, then why are you claiming that McCain's campaign is convinced she's ignorant to the point of needing blatant handling?
People are blaming the Republicans, but the Republicans were taken out of power two years ago. The Democrats are in charge of the law making process. The Democrats have been the ones in charge of regulation. Look where it got us.
The Republicans were taken out of power in terms of they lost the majority. They still had a Republican president, and enough seats in Congress to block things that didn't go their way. Similiarly, this isn't the fault of Democrats failing at regulation, it's the fault of both parties failing at regulation.
-Gray17
"I have, and right now Biden and Obama are still clocking it at less bullshit than McCain and Palin."
If you had, you would know that most of what Biden claimed in the VP debate was a lie. You would also know that Obama has been lying about his associations (ACORN, Ayers, Wright) and his ideas are wrong ("deregulation caused this")
"So if she's so knowledgeable, then why are you claiming that McCain's campaign is convinced she's ignorant to the point of needing blatant handling?"
She wasn't knowledgeable about foreign affairs, and she had to toe the line with McCain. Plus, the press is so far in the tank that she couldn't make a mistake at all or the press would use it as an excuse to label her a know nothing hick, despite her accomplishing more than they have in their pathetic lives. They did anyways, of course, and indoctrinated the populace into that line of thought. The Democrats, never having been concerned with things like "facts" and "honesty" were more than happy to supply the talking points necessary for the media to parrot.
"The Republicans were taken out of power in terms of they lost the majority. They still had a Republican president, and enough seats in Congress to block things that didn't go their way. Similiarly, this isn't the fault of Democrats failing at regulation, it's the fault of both parties failing at regulation."
Don't even try that bullshit on me. You ever heard of the Community Reinvestment Act? You know what it was for? Forcing banks to "serve their communities" by handing out loans to the poor. You know what Fannie and Freddie are? You know what they did? They were GSEs who removed risk by bundling up mortgages and selling them to banks with garuntees that they would get the money from the mortgage, even if the lenders didn't pay up. Fannie and Freddie went bust, becuase they bought up to many "nonconforming" mortgages at the behest of the government to try and increase homeownership.
You know who was in charge of Fannie and Freddie? The Dems. You know who controls the House and Senate? The Democrats. Screaming "it's the Republicans fault" doesn't make it true. That people actually buy that deregulation cuased this has convinced me that the populace at large and Democrats in particular are a mixture of the brainwashed, adult children, and imbeciles.
I've got a newsflash: businesses won't lend if the loan is near garunteed to go bad under normal conditions. Fannie and Freddie, both of which had implicit (now explicit) backing by the government, allowed banks to sell of risk. With no risk on bad loans, it was advantageous to increase the number of loans and get garuntees on them, because whether they were bad or not didn't matter. Fannie and Freddie took on these mortgages because, as quasi-government businesses, they must follow the government's demands. The government demanded that the poor get houses, so the GSEs complied. Go figure, the poor didn't pay their loans.
The best part of a deregulated market is that businesses can hang themselves. You clearly don't understand that.
<i>If you had, you would know that most of what Biden claimed in the VP debate was a lie. You would also know that Obama has been lying about his associations (ACORN, Ayers, Wright) and his ideas are wrong ("deregulation caused this")</i>
Actually most of what he claimed in the debate were half truths. Sure the truth was distorted or exagerated, but not really any worse than anything Palin said. As for the lying about associations, got any evidence? I haven't seen anything that proves wrong his campaign's statements about ACORN to be lies. I haven't seen him lie about Ayers, unless you've got some sort of proof that they're close personal friends. Wright was pretty much just a standard case of spin. Hardly enough real substance there to paint Obama as a huge liar. And deregulation was a big cause of the current economic problems. Or are you claiming that past regulations properly enforced wouldn't have stopped the abuses?
And I'll get to the rest later.
-Gray17
I'lll admit, it less lies and more spin. This spin, of course, counts as lieing by omission. For instance, he downplayed Reverent Wright, comparing him to an uncle who says weird things every once in a while. But his own biography says he went to Wrights church because of his fiery sermons. He's connected to ACORN, and is outright lieing there, becuase he trained some of their people. New evidence suggests that he was also a part of the New Party, which is a socialist group. Or at least, the socialists believed he was part of their groups. He minimalized the Ayers connection, saying that Ayers was just a guy who lives in his neighborhood. But that isn't anywhere close to true.
You want proof? How about the fact that Obama LAUNCHED HIS SENATE CAMPAIGN FROM AYERS'S LIVING ROOM! That isn't something you do when you don't know somebody very well.
"Most of what he claimed in the debate were half truths"
No, a huge chunk of what he claimed was false.
Nobody kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon. That was false. Biden claimed that Obama said he wouldn't sit down with Iran. That was false. None of Pakistan's missiles can hit Israel. That's false. He said that Article I defines the roles of the Executive Branch. Nice try Biden.
I'lll admit, it less lies and more spin. This spin, of course, counts as lieing by omission. For instance, he downplayed Reverent Wright, comparing him to an uncle who says weird things every once in a while. But his own biography says he went to Wrights church because of his fiery sermons. He's connected to ACORN, and is outright lieing there, becuase he trained some of their people. New evidence suggests that he was also a part of the New Party, which is a socialist group. Or at least, the socialists believed he was part of their groups.
And this is still just a bunch of ad hominem attacks relying on vague allegations, and guilt by association.
He minimalized the Ayers connection, saying that Ayers was just a guy who lives in his neighborhood. But that isn't anywhere close to true.
You want proof? How about the fact that Obama LAUNCHED HIS SENATE CAMPAIGN FROM AYERS'S LIVING ROOM! That isn't something you do when you don't know somebody very well.
Yeeeah, that's not proof. Hell it isn't even a valid point. An established member and activist of a community giving a boost to an up and coming member who is favored by other leaders in the community doesn't require the two to be close personal friends. Why don't you take a deep breath, and go here for a bit of reality on the whole subject:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/790/
She wasn't knowledgeable about foreign affairs, and she had to toe the line with McCain. Plus, the press is so far in the tank that she couldn't make a mistake at all or the press would use it as an excuse to label her a know nothing hick, despite her accomplishing more than they have in their pathetic lives. They did anyways, of course, and indoctrinated the populace into that line of thought. The Democrats, never having been concerned with things like "facts" and "honesty" were more than happy to supply the talking points necessary for the media to parrot.
So in short she's being handled to the point of looking incompetent because of weakness in foreign affairs and because the media has an anti-republican conspiracy going that they wanted to avoid?
Don't even try that bullshit on me. You ever heard of the Community Reinvestment Act?
As a matter of fact, I have. Would you be referring to the original 1977 act, or the various modifications to it that have taken place over the last 30 years? In any case, it's an exageration and a distortion to say that it was for forcing banks to hand out loans to the poor. It was to combat discrimination in lending based on things such as race or location.
The best part of a deregulated market is that businesses can hang themselves. You clearly don't understand that.
Oh? I'd say that's more or less exactly what's happened right now. Ever heard of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000? Or the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? Just to name a couple of the ways in which regulation and oversighe's been removed relatively recently.
So, regulations preventing expanding were relaxed, banks were allowed to expand as they desired. The end results has been golden parachutes for CEO's, risky behavior that took advantage of people, and ultimately the whole thing is in the middle of crashing down. Businesses saw an opportunity for profit, ignored the risk, and now those that engaged in the most risk are in the middle of hanging themselves.
Thus far, it's kinda sucked to the point that the government's insisted on doing something to try and bail them out; under the theory that if we let them perish as they should, they'll drag the economy, and therefore people's livelyhoods into utter ruin with them.
-Gray17
"And this is still just a bunch of ad hominem attacks relying on vague allegations, and guilt by association. "
So, when I do it it's "guilt by association", but when YOU do it it's "the truth". Got it.
The question remains: why did Obama associate with so many of these people? Why did he only disown them when it became a political liability not to do so? Just one crazy or corrupt official could be overlooked. This shows a definite pattern.
Went to the fact check link. The whole "debunking" is based on the fallacy that just because a Republican supported it, it must not be left wing. That, sadly, is bullshit. We also have the "he's not a terrorist because nobody died" bullshit in that same analysis. Given that the bomb that killed his comrades was a nail bomb, and they were to be used in a plot to blow up a dance for soldiers and their partners at Fort Dix, that is an outrageous lie.
Go figure out what media bias is. You love to point out the bias on Fox, now find where it's biased towards liberals i.e. on every other major news station. It's not a conspiracy, though, because there isn't any real coordination. It seems basically, to be journalists acting on shared assumptions, and given the liberal tilt of most journalists, that trends most networks in the liberal direction. It's most noticeable on MSNBC.
You should go read up on the Community Reinvestment Act. Specifically, you should read up on the part where banks are prosecuted if they don't "serve their communities" by loosening standards for the poor. The poor, not being known for paying off their debts, had high standards applied to them for a reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
"Oh? I'd say that's more or less exactly what's happened right now. "
Apparently, I imagined Paulson taking $700B to save failing banks. Wake up. The entire purpose of Fannie and Freddie was to lower the risks of making bad debts. Both were government established agencies, and both were government back agencies. Those greedy bankers took advantage of that government provided opportunity, and made loans like mad. I garuntee you, had FM not been there screwing with the markets, none of this would have happened. The government interfered and got us where we are. Now it wants more power so that it can turn us into the USSA. Or, to put it simply, those CEOs have always been greedy bastards. Expecting them not to be greedy reeks of functional economic retardation. Greed makes the economy go 'round. Fannie and Freddie garunteed no risk, and they took it. Eliminate them, and the greed will regain its far sight, and less risks will be taken.
You know what happens when the wolves all die? The buzzards eat their corpse. People are scared. They don't want the pain. But pain is inevitable. Let the markets crash now, like they should have done a long time ago. Raise the interest rate up to a reasonable level, say 5%. Either get rid of the two GSEs entirely, or get them off federal money and don't save them when they eventually die again. Sadly, people have apparently forgotten that the economy fails when the government starts micromanaging.
So, when I do it it's "guilt by association", but when YOU do it it's "the truth". Got it.
...What the hell? When did I attack anyone's character? I've been attacking arguments. Pointing out logical fallicies. I haven't been claiming that McCain associates with criminals.
Went to the fact check link. The whole "debunking" is based on the fallacy that just because a Republican supported it, it must not be left wing.
Umm, I linked to two articles debunking various things about Ayers in relation to Obama. You're saying they're wrong about the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, but both links cover more than that. Specifically they covered the whole "lying" part as well. And I'd say your wrong that the debunking of the challenge is based on a fallacy. It's pointing out that while it was a departure from the norm, it had bi-partisan support. An attempt at fresh ideas, even left-wing ones does not mean criminal. Nor does it mean that it's radical in the same sense as radical islam.
Go figure out what media bias is. You love to point out the bias on Fox, now find where it's biased towards liberals i.e. on every other major news station.
The hell? I've never complained about the bias on Fox specially because everyone's biased.
You should go read up on the Community Reinvestment Act. Specifically, you should read up on the part where banks are prosecuted if they don't "serve their communities" by loosening standards for the poor. The poor, not being known for paying off their debts, had high standards applied to them for a reason.
Did you miss the part where I said that I was familiar with it? The point of it was to help put an end to "you live in a bad or so-so neighborhood, so we aren't going to lend to you at all." Hell, the wikipedia article you linked to even says "There are no specific penalties for non-compliance with the CRA." They didn't get sued if they didn't give loans to people that couldn't repay them. They'd have trouble at expanding if they didn't apply the same lending criteria to everyone. That's not loosening standards, that's an attempt at forcing