Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Smear? Romney is milquetoast. He needs to go after Obama and pull him inside out.One of the ugliest I've seen in my lifetime. Is there any chance that both sides are going to discuss the actual issues, such as the economy, rather than smear tactics?
Smear? Romney is milquetoast. He needs to go after Obama and pull him inside out.
I agree, much more has come from Obama, and the cancer death ad is the lowest of the low. I know throughout our history there have been some nasty campaigns, like Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams. However, nothing has stooped to this level. At least back then, issues were discussed, and for the most part, debates showed respect for the opponent. This campaign has turned the Presidency into a traveling circus.Negative advertising seems to be the order of the day. But so far, most of the real sleaze has come from Obama.
Romney's "negative" ads have been about Obama's record as president. Obama's have been a plethora of lies and innuendo and have had not much at all to do with what Romney has said he will do if elected or what Obama himself will do if re-elected.
I agree, much more has come from Obama, and the cancer death ad is the lowest of the low. I know throughout our history there have been some nasty campaigns, like Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams. However, nothing has stooped to this level. At least back then, issues were discussed, and for the most part, debates showed respect for the opponent. This campaign has turned the Presidency into a traveling circus.
If that doesn't happen, may I assume you will publicly apologize for making that statement? No one of either party has EVER stooped this low before, and I think it's very unfair of you (to say the least) to assume that any conservative organization will jump into the same pool of sewage.But, if we wait long enough I am sure some PAC backing Romney will do something just as vile.
If that doesn't happen, may I assume you will publicly apologize for making that statement? No one of either party has EVER stooped this low before, and I think it's very unfair of you (to say the least) to assume that any conservative organization will jump into the same pool of sewage.
One of the ugliest I've seen in my lifetime. Is there any chance that both sides are going to discuss the actual issues, such as the economy, rather than smear tactics?
These PACs are a sham - they allow this kind of filth to be broadcast and allow the candidates to distance themselves.
I agree, the super PACs should not be allowed to exist. They are answerable to no one and there is no control over how they spend their money and the message or the lies they produce. I believe the Supreme Court ruling on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allowing unlimited contributions was a terrible mistake on the part of the Supreme Court. To me this ruling negated the importance of the average voter to politicians in campaigns. The ruling in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission also removed the importance of the average voter to politicians.
I agree, the super PACs should not be allowed to exist. They are answerable to no one and there is no control over how they spend their money and the message or the lies they produce. I believe the Supreme Court ruling on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allowing unlimited contributions was a terrible mistake on the part of the Supreme Court.
Quite the opposite, actually. It allows the average voter to organize. I can see why Socialists would hate them.I agree, the super PACs should not be allowed to exist. They are answerable to no one and there is no control over how they spend their money and the message or the lies they produce. I believe the Supreme Court ruling on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allowing unlimited contributions was a terrible mistake on the part of the Supreme Court. To me this ruling negated the importance of the average voter to politicians in campaigns. The ruling in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission also removed the importance of the average voter to politicians.
That's not the question. You are saying you are SURE that some GOP supporting PAC will stoop as low as this ad. That's an extremely unfair assumption, and in my opinion, conduct unbefitting a board administrator. Of course, you have made these kind of statements before. Your agenda seems to be to never admit that either party is better than the other in any way, no matter what extremes are involved. I'M sure that if Obama came out for a press conference and killed all of the reporters with a machine gun, you would say, "Well, I'm sure Romney will blow away a room full of reporters too before November."Of course - these are PACs and they can get away with anything they want. I don't assume that they are any virtuous PACs no matter who they support.
That's not the question. You are saying you are SURE that some GOP supporting PAC will stoop as low as this ad. That's an extremely unfair assumption, and in my opinion, conduct unbefitting a board administrator. Of course, you have made these kind of statements before. Your agenda seems to be to never admit that either party is better than the other in any way, no matter what extremes are involved. I'M sure that if Obama came out for a press conference and killed all of the reporters with a machine gun, you would say, "Well, I'm sure Romney will blow away a room full of reporters too before November."
I never said any of the PACs are pure. Both sides do impure things during campaigns. But you said you were SURE that some GOP supporting PAC would do something JUST AS VILE. That is an absurd assumption, and I illustrated the absurdity of your attitude by being absurd. Unless some GOP supporting PAC falsely accuses Obama of being culpable in a specific person's death (or something even worse, if that's possible), you will owe all of them and this board an apology.Let's just wait and see how pure the Super PACs supporting Romney are, shall we?
The question is how Romney and the GOP will respond.
BTW, your reductio ad absurdum is indeed exactly that - absurd.
I never said any of the PACs are pure. Both sides do impure things during campaigns. But you said you were SURE that some GOP supporting PAC would do something JUST AS VILE. That is an absurd assumption, and I illustrated the absurdity of your attitude by being absurd. Unless some GOP supporting PAC falsely accuses Obama of being culpable in a specific person's death (or something even worse, if that's possible), you will owe all of them and this board an apology.
I don't accept that, and I'm sorry if this is derailing the thread a bit, but I consider this an important issue. I'm sick and tired of every time the Dems/libs do one more even more disgusting thing, both people on their side and holier-than-thou types like you just say, 'Well, your side is just as bad." NO, we are NOT. We are talking here about one side accusing the other's presidential candidate of being responsible for someone's death, and the accusation is patently false and laden with supporting lies. I defy you to give me an example of anything that any conservative or conservative group has done within our lifetimes that comes close to rivaling that. And if you cannot, you have NO moral right to make the assumption that some conservative or group is going to do it ('pretty certain' still qualifies as an assumption that it will happen). And I would remind you that this 'derailing' is happening because of your own absurd statement, and refusal to meaningfully back away from it.I disagree on 'owing an apology' because 'just as vile' is subjective and open to interpretation. What I may see as 'just as vile' may not meet your standard of vile.
Anyhow, we are playing with semantics - in order to let the discussion carry on without the semantic burden that you choose to load it with I will reword with hope of placating this hang-up.
'I am pretty certain that before long some Super-PAC supporting the GOP will do something just as vile.'
Now, can we get back to the thread without the needless personalisation of discussing the posters?