CB, YOU made the point that Obama was guilty by association. I clearly pointed out associations McCain is KNOWN to have. Then I said you cannot say Obama is guilty by association but McCain is not. You refuse to admit that faulty logic which I would put up to anyone (without a hateful absolutist tendency) to review. I clearly said I give both candidates the benefit of the doubt, and you obviously do not. Somehow in all this I am just spouting opinion? As for name calling when I have I ever used any term in the derogatory sense as you use in about every response you make. "Socialist", "you liberals", etc, etc, etc. I try to debate points and logic you do not. Opinions are fine we all have them but when they are backed up with nothing but hatred, they are counterproductive. And you do not know me so for the last time stop calling me a socialist/socialist supporter. THAT shows your ignorance (lack of understanding).

Dead to right on what? Please be specific on dead to right. Your conjecture is nothing but opinion on topics, not complete on fact. Sorry but between us there are no winners, only opinions. Gave up name calling in third grade? Well, it surely doesn't show now does it? If one continually sponsors the left and makes excuses for the left, they are no less guilty of the same things that they complain the right is doing. To paint McCain as more of the same is really amusing but to be honest, aside from a difficult economy for "anyone" to manipulate, I really don't see much wrong. I will NEVER vote for socialists nor make excuses for them. Now please don't come back with the but but but that liberal socialists say they hate that conservatives use.

You are a pip CB. You cannot come back because you know I have you dead to right on this one. One cannot be intellectually honest and say that Obama is guilty by association but McCain is not-which is EXACTLY what you are doing. I said I give both the benefit of the doubt and yet you then call me a socialist. Could an argument get any weaker and more childish? You are the one who is an absolutist not me. I have said Obama is not my first choice and I dearly wish there was another because McCain is no choice either. But I choose anything over more years of the same which is what McCain is promising. I see nothing in his campaign but pathetic personal attacks and a promulgation of the current policy failures. As a note: I will not resort to namecalling as I gave that up in third grade.

but isn't the biggest surge in illegal immigration occuring under this administration? Under a former governor of a border state? Try another scare tactic.

It is obvious that you stand for the democrats and argue continuously in their favor. It is no secret that you want to give any democrat the benefit of the doubt as well so what is your point? We can spar all day long but we will never come to agreement on anything because we are on different sides of the battle. I think Bill Clinton and NObama are schmucks and you don't. That is fine but in the long and short of things, there are definitely two sides to every story and every story that you present, although with more time and thought than I have time for, is NOT an even a remotely conservative approach. With that in mind, declare yourself a socialist democrat and be done with it. Vote NObama, be happy, enjoy life and, if NObama wins, gladly pay for illegals and slackers that are no benefit to our country and your wallet. Thank you!!

Hagee has stated in the past that Hitler and the Nazis were a sign from Biblical passages for the elimination of the Jews-a sign of end times which is a tenet of the branch of faith he belongs to. This is no secret that he despises Catholics and Jews-not from what I have ascertained and what he has said.

I personally think John Hagee is "way out there" as a Christian, but I missed his opinion on Nazis. Could someone who referenced it pls fill us in? Cheers, MGM

you are fine. Why don't you afford Barrack the same courtesy? Oh, that's right, that would be logical...

McCains on Hagee: "very honored" to have his support; "all I can tell you is that I am very proud to have Pastor John Hagee's support"; and on 2/26 in Cincinatti he called Hagee a "spiritual guide". Given Hagee's positions on Catholics, Jews, Nazis, etc I will again use your standard that McCain is guilty by association-period. I give both candidates the benefit of a doubt-you however obviously give McCain all benefits of a doubt and Obama none. That pretty much is it in a nutshell. So much for reasoning. As for your statement of declaring Ayers and Wrights activities, Obama never sought their political support (like McCain did of Hagee) and Obama did not do those things for crying out loud. The press has hounded Obama over Wright and let Hagee slip by McCain after he bascially just said oops. And what about the Wyly's and other crooks McCain has saddled up to? Guilt there too? PS. aquittal does not mean innocent.

No need to wiggle, there is plenty of room. Hmm..Hagee, Ok where do we get the notion that he is McCain's "spiritial advisor". Unlike Wright, I just don't see it. Keating...Ummm...McCain was aquitted of "ANY" wrong doing so what is the point. Corsi...ummm, haven't read his stuff but again what he has written probably holds a standard of truth that is only decried as lies by NObama or Kerry. Go figure. Now please help me out here because you know I don't know much. Just who of the above was a member of the Weathermen organization that planted bombs in DC, ran drugs, and ran a covert underground radical organization that was on the FBI hit list? Help me out again but who of the above claimed that whitey invented AIDS to eradicate the black population? NObama is CLOSE friends with ties like that.

What about McCain and his hypocrisy? Remember McCain seeking the support from a certain pastor? You can't have it both ways, no matter how hard you try. But keep the good arguments coming, you know, like your typical socialist bigoted liberal...pretty convincing.

And McCain has Hagee as his spiritual advisor, who is blatantly anti Catholic and anti-Muslim and has said the most ugly and hateful things about those religions/people. McCain also is aligned with Charles Keating-remember the Keating Five? He also has buddied up to known liar and weirdo Jerome Corsi; and has sought the financial help recently from Charles and Sam Wyly-men he called corrupt for violating campaign finance laws in getting Bush elected; and he has saddled up to Grover Norquist- a man he called a crook and a shill for dictators. Using your standard then we can all safely assume that McCain believes the way all these people do, as he is guilty by association. You can start wiggling your way out now. This should be interesting.

Many times we are judged by the company that we keep. Ayers is a known domestic terrorist and Obama is friends with him. Obama stayed with Rev. Wright for 20? years and we know what that mans position is. We can go on and on but simply put, NObama keeps very bad company. That said, it is all too easy to associate NObama with left wing socialist, bomb toting, bigoted, racial, liberal extremists. Sorry but that is the truth but I know, liberals will downplay all of his associations as only with good intentions. Baloney.

Obama had his incident 40 years ago!! He was 8 years old for crying outloud. Wow. This whole issue is just another stunt by the "right" to lie, distort, and mislead people. Obama met with the man 30 years after the incidents while the man was a teacher and wanted to become involved in improving the lives of inner city citizens. They had a common bond of making people's lives better, not one of terrorism. Judge that man's past actions as you will (and they were bad) but do not try to broadslap Obama as though he supported the actions from long ago. Obama is on record saying the actions were wrong. That should be it, period, end of story.

McCain was healthy enough to advance his career. He did that with ease. To blame his infidelity on his assimilation to society is not holding true to the facts. Read up on the timeline again.

Just for perspective, 40 years ago when Obama had his controversial encounter, John McCain broke up his marriage, in his post-Vietnam-POW days. I find any divorce to be a tragedy and do not wish to minimize the pain this one might have caused. However, how many of our POW's came back unable to reassimilate into the family they had left? One of the sad consequences of war. Cheers, MGM

Newt condemning Clinton for having an affair, while he himself, was having an affair.

The media does not water down one side and ramp up the other on indescretions of political figures. Smut sells and it matters not whom it is about as long as the persons are well known. For crying out loud McCain had an affair on his first wife and he is getting a total pass on that one. But we can go back to college for Dems regarding pot smoking. Or for Obama we go back 40 years to the actions of a person he did not know then and has always spoke out against the actions that man's group did in the past. All Obama did was meet with the guy who is now an educator, about improving people's lives in the inner city. Subversive stuff there for sure. It cuts both ways, always has and with no particular favoritism.

Sen. Craig and Sen. Vitter sponsoring a bill to "protect marriage". Such behavior will land you in the headlines. It's not an attack on republicans, it is an attack on hypocrisy. Foley was a crusader for child abuse and exploitation. Do you see a pattern? Or do you just want to throw out "well democrat X did this..."

For some reason Gerry Studds comes to mind again. Isn't that the Mass. Senator that not only solicited but HAD sex with a 16 yr old congressional aide on a trip to France? On top of that he admitted it with no regrets only to be re-elected by democrats for, I believe, 10 more years after it happened? We can compare both parties all day long but the truth of watering down democratic indescretions and blowing republican indescretions out of proportion is undeniable. Quite frankly, I would say that both parties are probably neck and neck on this one.