Backstabbing in McCain camp...

[Esther]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

Deacon, you're a piece of work. Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean you should commence name calling and making ad hominem attacks.

The facts about Sarah Palin I've presented here were reported on your precious Fox News, the paragon of fair and balaced reporting. Do you dispute their reporting? The things that have been said about her by me were said by her own associates and advisors. I'm merely repeating them here as I heard them on Fox News. I didn't read it in Newsweek, get your facts straight. And get your head out of the sand while you're at it. And take a chill pill, you're making way, way too much of this; overreacting to the extreme.

Let's put this in perspective. We disagree, big whoopie. Please do us all a favor, get over yourself and stop acting so infantile. You're beginning to remind me of Keith Obermann. Your sour grapes whining is embarrassing for you and your point of view (much of it that I agree with btw).

As usual I noticed you didn't disagree with the real issues DB stated. The FACTS. Maybe because you agree with the abortions? The gay agenda? etc.???

[A_PoMo]

Originally Posted by Esther

As usual I noticed you didn't disagree with the real issues DB stated. The FACTS. Maybe because you agree with the abortions? The gay agenda? etc.???

OH PLEASE!!! GET REAL!!! That's just retarded! Why do you guys automatically resort to ad hominem attacks when somebody disagrees with your position and your 'evidence'? It's so incredibly frustrating. Perhaps the bigger point that can be extracted from this board.

I am a conservative Christian like you. I agree with more than I disagree with in regards to DB's pov. AND I SAID SO! I just disagree with him and some of you who support McCain and Palin. Stop being so black and white about it and trying to create an 'us vs. them' situation. We're brothers and sisters who disagree.

I didn't engage DB with his "facts" because he they were red herrings, not because I'm pro-choice or pro-gay or any of those other things. Geez.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

OH PLEASE!!! GET REAL!!! That's just retarded! Why do you guys automatically resort to ad hominem attacks when somebody disagrees with your position and your 'evidence'? It's so incredibly frustrating. Perhaps the bigger point that can be extracted from this board.

I am a conservative Christian like you. I agree with more than I disagree with in regards to DB's pov. AND I SAID SO! I just disagree with him and some of you who support McCain and Palin. Stop being so black and white about it and trying to create an 'us vs. them' situation. We're brothers and sisters who disagree.

I didn't engage DB with his "facts" because he they were red herrings, not because I'm pro-choice or pro-gay or any of those other things. Geez.

If I may quote you.....OH PLEASE!!! GET REAL !!! That's just retared!

Why do you play down OUR real issues. WE stand against abortion, and gay agendas, these are issues important to Christians! These are NOT red herrings!

BO admits to supporting those issues! HELLO!!!!!!!!!

[A_PoMo]

Originally Posted by Esther

If I may quote you.....OH PLEASE!!! GET REAL !!! That's just retared!

Why do you play down OUR real issues. WE stand against abortion, and gay agendas, these are issues important to Christians! These are NOT red herrings!

BO admits to supporting those issues! HELLO!!!!!!!!!

HELLO!!! I never played them down! Did I not state repeatedly above that I am one of you in that regard? I stand against abortion and gay agendas too and they're important issues to me too.

I'm just saying that in the context of what we were talking about at the time they were red herrings, meaning they were not the point. They are not red herrings in the context of the larger discussion of politics and morality.

Please, stop the 'us. vs. them' thing with people that disagree with you on a minor point. Unity does not require uniformity.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

HELLO!!! I never played them down! Did I not state repeatedly above that I am one of you in that regard? I stand against abortion and gay agendas too and they're important issues to me too.

I'm just saying that in the context of what we were talking about at the time they were red herrings, meaning they were not the point. They are not red herrings in the context of the larger discussion of politics and morality.

Please, stop the 'us. vs. them' thing with people that disagree with you on a minor point. Unity does not require uniformity.

Excuse me "minor point"? What do you consider to be a major point?

[mama bear]

[TK Burk]

More on the Palin saga today on ABC NEWS:

Fox News reports that Palin didn't know Africa was a continent and did not know the member nations of the North American Free Trade Agreement -- the United States, Mexico and Canada -- when she was picked for vice president.

Perhaps the most dangerous allegation for Palin are reports in The New York Times and Newsweek that when she was urged by McCain adviser Nicole Wallace to buy three suits for the Republican convention and three suits for the campaign trail, she went on the now-infamous shopping spree at swank stores like Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus.

A Republican donor who agreed to foot a majority of the expenses was stunned when he received the bill, Newsweek reported. Both the Times and Newsweek report that the budget for the clothing was expected to be between $20,000 and $25,000. Instead, the amount reported by the Republican National Committee was $150,000.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

More on the Palin sage today on ABC NEWS:

Fox News reports that Palin didn't know Africa was a continent and did not know the member nations of the North American Free Trade Agreement -- the United States, Mexico and Canada -- when she was picked for vice president.

Perhaps the most dangerous allegation for Palin are reports in The New York Times and Newsweek that when she was urged by McCain adviser Nicole Wallace to buy three suits for the Republican convention and three suits for the campaign trail, she went on the now-infamous shopping spree at swank stores like Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus.

A Republican donor who agreed to foot a majority of the expenses was stunned when he received the bill, Newsweek reported. Both the Times and Newsweek report that the budget for the clothing was expected to be between $20,000 and $25,000. Instead, the amount reported by the Republican National Committee was $150,000.

You forgot to post where she said she consider all of the wardrobe property of the RNC and plans to give it back.

I can't imagine spending that much money on clothes, but I understand she bought clothes for her family as well. And all things considered I guess the family needs to look sharp as well.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Esther

You forgot to post where she said she consider all of the wardrobe property of the RNC and plans to give it back.

I can't imagine spending that much money on clothes, but I understand she bought clothes for her family as well. And all things considered I guess the family needs to look sharp as well.

I didn't write the article so I don't think I am the one forgetting anything....

Also, it is the Republicans who are complaining about her shopping spree. I seem to remember that she claimed someone else bought her all the clothing. Now it appears that the Republicans are blamming her for it. Interesting....

[All4one]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

I didn't write the article so I don't think I am the one forgetting anything....

Also, it is the Republicans who are complaining about her shopping spree. I seem to remember that she claimed someone else bought her all the clothing. Now it appears that the Republicans are blamming her for it. Interesting....

Obama's campain spent 3 times the money that McCain's spent and yet Palens clothes are too exspensive? Why are we following the lead of the news media that we know is biased?