DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Rich on February 25, 2008, 03:43:05 PM
-
http://www.atimes.com (http://www.atimes.com)
Obama's women reveal his secret
By Spengler
"Cherchez la femme," advised Alexander Dumas in: "When you want to uncover an unspecified secret, look for the woman." In the case of Barack Obama, we have two: his late mother, the went-native anthropologist Ann Dunham, and his rancorous wife Michelle. Obama's women reveal his secret: he hates America.
We know less about Senator Obama than about any prospective president in American history. His uplifting rhetoric is empty, as Hillary Clinton helplessly protests. His career bears no trace of his own character, not an article for the Harvard Law Review he
edited, or a single piece of legislation. He appears to be an empty vessel filled with the wishful thinking of those around him. But there is a real Barack Obama. No man - least of all one abandoned in infancy by his father - can conceal the imprint of an impassioned mother, or the influence of a brilliant wife.
America is not the embodiment of hope, but the abandonment of one kind of hope in return for another. America is the spirit of creative destruction, selecting immigrants willing to turn their back on the tragedy of their own failing culture in return for a new start. Its creative success is so enormous that its global influence hastens the decline of other cultures. For those on the destruction side of the trade, America is a monster. Between half and nine-tenths of the world's 6,700 spoken languages will become extinct in the next century, and the anguish of dying peoples rises up in a global cry of despair. Some of those who listen to this cry become anthropologists, the curators of soon-to-be extinct cultures; anthropologists who really identify with their subjects marry them. Obama's mother, the University of Hawaii anthropologist Ann Dunham, did so twice.
Obama profiles Americans the way anthropologists interact with primitive peoples. He holds his own view in reserve and emphatically draws out the feelings of others; that is how friends and colleagues describe his modus operandi since his days at the Harvard Law Review, through his years as a community activist in Chicago, and in national politics. Anthropologists, though, proceed from resentment against the devouring culture of America and sympathy with the endangered cultures of the primitive world. Obama inverts the anthropological model: he applies the tools of cultural manipulation out of resentment against America. The probable next president of the United States is a mother's revenge against the America she despised.
Ann Dunham died in 1995, and her character emerges piecemeal from the historical record, to which I will return below. But Michelle Obama is a living witness. Her February 18 comment that she felt proud of her country for the first time caused a minor scandal, and was hastily qualified. But she meant it, and more. The video footage of her remarks shows eyes hooded with rage as she declares:
For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment.
The desperation, frustration and disappointment visible on Michelle Obama's face are not new to the candidate's wife; as Steve Sailer, Rod Dreher and other commentators have noted, they were the theme of her undergraduate thesis, on the subject of "blackness" at Princeton University. No matter what the good intentions of Princeton, which founded her fortunes as a well-paid corporate lawyer, she wrote, "My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'Blackness' than ever before. I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong."
Never underestimate the influence of a wife who bitch-slaps her husband in public. Early in Obama's campaign, Michelle Obama could not restrain herself from belittling the senator. "I have some difficulty reconciling the two images I have of Barack Obama. There's Barack Obama the phenomenon. He's an amazing orator, Harvard Law Review, or whatever it was, law professor, best-selling author, Grammy winner. Pretty amazing, right? And then there's the Barack Obama that lives with me in my house, and that guy's a little less impressive," she told a fundraiser in February 2007.
"For some reason this guy still can't manage to put the butter up when he makes toast, secure the bread so that it doesn't get stale, and his five-year-old is still better at making the bed than he is." New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd reported at the time, "She added that the TV version of Barack Obama sounded really interesting and that she'd like to meet him sometime." Her handlers have convinced her to be more tactful since then.
"Frustration" and "disappointment" have dogged Michelle Obama these past 20 years, despite her US$300,000 a year salary and corporate board memberships. It is hard for the descendants of slaves not to resent America. They were not voluntary immigrants but kidnap victims, subjected to a century of second-class citizenship even after the Civil War ended slavery. Blackness is not the issue; General Colin Powell, whose parents chose to immigrate to America from the West Indies, saw America just as other immigrants do, as a land of opportunity. Obama's choice of wife is a failsafe indicator of his own sentiments. Spouses do not necessarily share their likes, but they must have their hatreds in common. Obama imbibed this hatred with his mother's milk.
Michelle Obama speaks with greater warmth of her mother-in-law than of her husband. "She was kind of a dreamer, his mother," Michelle Obama was quoted in the January 25 Boston Globe. "She wanted the world to be open to her and her children. And as a result of her naivete, sometimes they lived on food stamps, because sometimes dreams don't pay the rent. But as a result of her naivete, Barack got to see the world like most of us don't in this country." How strong the ideological motivation must be of a mother to raise her children on the thin fair of government assistance in pursuit of a political agenda.
"Naivete" is a euphemism for Ann Dunham's motivation. Friends describe her as a "fellow traveler", that is, a communist sympathizer, from her youth, according to a March 27, 2007, Chicago Tribune report. Many Americans harbor leftist views, but not many marry into them, twice. Ann Dunham met and married the Kenyan economics student Barack Obama, Sr, at the University of Hawaii in 1960, and in 1967 married the Indonesian student Lolo Soetero. It is unclear why Soetero's student visa was revoked in 1967 - the fact but not the cause are noted in press accounts. But it is probable that the change in government in Indonesia in 1967, in which the leftist leader Sukarno was deposed, was the motivation.
Soetero had been sponsored as a graduate student by one of the most radical of all Third World governments. Sukarno had founded the so-called Non-Aligned Movement as an anti-colonialist turn at the 1955 Bandung Conference in Indonesia. Before deposing him in 1967, Indonesia's military slaughtered 500,000 communists (or unfortunates who were mistaken for communists). When Ann Dunham chose to follow Lolo Soetero to Indonesia in 1967, she brought the six-year-old Barack into the kitchen of anti-colonialist outrage, immediate following one of the worst episodes of civil violence in post-war history.
Dunham's experience in Indonesia provided the material for a doctoral dissertation celebrating the hardiness of local cultures against the encroaching metropolis. It was entitled, "Peasant blacksmithing in Indonesia: surviving against all odds". In this respect Dunham remained within the mainstream of her discipline. Anthropology broke into popular awareness with Margaret Mead's long-discredited Coming of Age in Samoa (1928), which offered a falsified ideal of sexual liberation in the South Pacific as an alternative to the supposedly repressive West. Mead's work was one of the founding documents of the sexual revolution of the 1960s, and anthropology faculties stood at the left-wing fringe of American universities.
In the Global South, anthropologists went into the field and took matters a step further. Peru's brutal Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) guerilla movement was the brainchild of the anthropologist.
Efrain Morote Best, who headed the University of San Cristobal of Huamanga in Ayacucho, Peru, between 1962 and 1968. Dunham's radicalism was more vicarious; she ended her career as an employee of international organizations.
Barack Obama received at least some instruction in the Islamic faith of his father and went with him to the mosque, but the importance of this experience is vastly overstated by conservative commentators who seek to portray Obama as a Muslim of sorts. Radical anti-Americanism, rather than Islam, was the reigning faith in the Dunham household. In the Muslim world of the 1960s, nationalism rather than radical Islam was the ideology of choice among the enraged. Radical Islam did not emerge as a major political force until the nationalism of a Gamal Abdel Nasser or a Sukarno failed.
Barack Obama is a clever fellow who imbibed hatred of America with his mother's milk, but worked his way up the elite ladder of education and career. He shares the resentment of Muslims against the encroachment of American culture, although not their religion. He has the empathetic skill set of an anthropologist who lives with his subjects, learns their language, and elicits their hopes and fears while remaining at emotional distance. That is, he is the political equivalent of a sociopath. The difference is that he is practicing not on a primitive tribe but on the population of the United States.
There is nothing mysterious about Obama's methods. "A demagogue tries to sound as stupid as his audience so that they will think they are as clever as he is," wrote Karl Krauss. Americans are the world's biggest suckers, and laugh at this weakness in their popular culture. Listening to Obama speak, Sinclair Lewis' cynical tent-revivalist Elmer Gantry comes to mind, or, even better, Tyrone Power's portrayal of a carnival mentalist in the 1947 film noire Nightmare Alley. The latter is available for instant viewing at Netflix, and highly recommended as an antidote to having felt uplifted by an Obama speech.
America has the great misfortune to have encountered Obama at the peak of his powers at its worst moment of vulnerability in a generation. With malice of forethought, he has sought out their sore point.
Since the Ronald Reagan boom began in 1984, the year the American stock market doubled, Americans have enjoyed a quarter-century of rising wealth. Even the collapse of the Internet bubble in 2000 did not interrupt the upward trajectory of household assets, as the housing price boom eclipsed the effect of equity market weakness. America's success made it a magnet for the world's savings, and Americans came to believe that they were riding a boom that would last forever, as I wrote recently [1].
Americans regard upward mobility as a God-given right. America had a double founding, as David Hackett Fischer showed in his 1989 study, Albion's Seed . Two kinds of immigrants founded America: religious dissidents seeking a new Promised Land, and economic opportunists looking to get rich quick. Both elements still are present, but the course of the past quarter-century has made wealth-creation the sine qua non of American life. Now for the first time in a generation Americans have become poorer, and many of them have become much poorer due to the collapse of home prices. Unlike the Reagan years, when cutting the top tax rate from a punitive 70% to a more tolerable 40% was sufficient to start an economic boom, no lever of economic policy is available to fix the problem. Americans have no choice but to work harder, retire later, save more and retrench.
This reversal has provoked a national mood of existential crisis. In Europe, economic downturns do not inspire this kind of soul-searching, for Europeans, richer are poorer, remain what they always have been. But Americans are what they make of themselves, and the slim makings of 2008 shake their sense of identity. Americans have no institutionalized culture to fall back on. Their national religion has consisted of waves of enthusiasm - "Great Awakenings" ? every second generation or so, followed by an interim of apathy. In times of stress they have a baleful susceptibility to hucksters and conmen.
Be afraid - be very afraid. America is at a low point in its fortunes, and feeling sorry for itself. When Barack utters the word "hope", they instead hear, "handout". A cynic might translate the national motto, E pluribus unum, as "something for nothing". Now that the stock market and the housing market have failed to give Americans something for nothing, they want something for nothing from the government. The trouble is that he who gets something for nothing will earn every penny of it, twice over.
The George W Bush administration has squandered a great strategic advantage in a sorry lampoon of nation-building in the Muslim world, and has made enemies out of countries that might have been friendly rivals, notably Russia. Americans question the premise of America's standing as a global superpower, and of the promise of upward mobility and wealth-creation. If elected, Barack Obama will do his utmost to destroy the dual premises of America's standing. It might take the country another generation to recover.
"Evil will oft evil mars", J R R Tolkien wrote. It is conceivable that Barack Obama, if elected, will destroy himself before he destroys the country. Hatred is a toxic diet even for someone with as strong a stomach as Obama. As he recalled in his 1995 autobiography, Dreams From My Father, Obama idealized the Kenyan economist who had married and dumped his mother, and was saddened to learn that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr, was a sullen, drunken polygamist. The elder Obama became a senior official of the government of Kenya after earning a PhD at Harvard. He was an abusive drunk and philanderer whose temper soured his career.
The senior Obama died in a 1982 car crash. Kenyan government officials in those days normally spent their nights drinking themselves stupid at the Pan-Afrique Hotel. Two or three of them would be found with their Mercedes wrapped around a palm tree every morning. During the 1970s I came to know a number of them, mostly British-educated hollow men dying inside of their own hypocrisy and corruption.
Both Obama and the American public should be very careful of what they wish for. As the horrible example of Obama's father shows, there is nothing worse for an embittered outsider manipulating the system from within than to achieve his goals - and nothing can be more terrible for the system. Even those who despise America for its blunders of the past few years should ask themselves whether the world will be a safer place if America retreats into a self-pitying shell.
-
Wow, attacking a candidate's dead parents. This is a new low.
Even for you.
-
Obama's weakness is no secret.....he's a hard left liberal, speaking platitudes and utopian socialist ideals cloaked in "change" repeated every third word, and nothing more. In other words, his actions and voting record to date. That's where the focus should be and not on the parents
-
I don't think that Obama got more from his father than some chromosomes. This article is rather silly. Obama does not hate America. I think Nixon hated Americans, including himself, but I get nothing of this from Obama.
If McCain is elected, count on war and more war. He is a soldier who did not defeat his enemy, and perhaps he has some sort of obsession to defeat some imaginary enemy in Iraq.
There is no real way for the US to win a civil war in Iraq. The US cannot successfully attack and win against Iram without a draft and a major WWII style sacrifice from its citizens, and they don't want that. Iran has three times the population of Iraq, and McCain wants to bomb it. He jokes about it.
-
very enlightening
although I already suspected alot of it
thanks rich
we have a real chance to beat this guy if the truth gets out
he is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy to the Left of the American people.
-
In other words, his actions and voting record to date. That's where the focus should be and not on the parents
Dead on sirs. There are ways to take Obama down other than this hit piece or referencing his middle name in every post.
-
In other words, his actions and voting record to date. That's where the focus should be and not on the parents
Dead on sirs. There are ways to take Obama down other than this hit piece or referencing his middle name in every post.
Or showing him some locale cultural garb. I mean, that was as transparently desperate, as one can get. Clinton camp again, right?
-
Or showing him some locale cultural garb. I mean, that was as transparently desperate, as one can get. Clinton camp again, right?
Actually, I'm not sure what you're talking about. But coming from the Clintons, nothing would surprise me.
-
Or showing him some locale cultural garb. I mean, that was as transparently desperate, as one can get. Clinton camp again, right?
Actually, I'm not sure what you're talking about. But coming from the Clintons, nothing would surprise me.
(http://www.drudgereport.com/oa.jpg)
It's the latest attempt at the Clinton's, in some pathetic effort to demonize Barak as some apparent Muslim
-
Ah, I was just reading about that on Yahoo. Thanks for the pic sirs. I think that a lot of Coptic Christians and Ethiopian Orthodox dress similarly. In the article that I read, a Clinton spokesperson was saying how this was a blatant attempt at distracting from the real campaign issues. Who's distracting who?
-
>>That's where the focus should be and not on the parents.<<
Did your parents influence you at all sirs? I'm guessing they did, as do just about everyone's. This piece is nothing more that an attempt to see inside the mind of Barack Hussein Obama because as you correctly point out he offers nothing but platitudes. Historical figures are always analyzed this way, wouldn't you agree?
-
>>That's where the focus should be and not on the parents.<<
Did your parents influence you at all sirs? I'm guessing they did, as do just about everyone's.
Yes.....and? Both smoked, my Dad drank, and hit my mom a lot when I was young. And your point would be? We become carbon copies of our parents?? FYI, I've never smoked or hit a woman in my life, but yes, parents CAN provide SOME influence on the adult child's actions.
This piece is nothing more that an attempt to see inside the mind of Barack Hussein Obama because as you correctly point out he offers nothing but platitudes.
So, let's stick with the relevent platitudes & socialist hogwash of Obama's, and leave the irrelevent references to parents out of it, since it really doesn't have any impact today. His minister is far more relevent today, than what his parents were, way back when.....IMHO
-
I think there is a sea change coming in american politics, at least for this race. I think the voting public is tired of rant by rote partisan bickering.
As far as i know neither front runner, McCain or Obama has gone negative to this point, even though they were trailing badly at various stages of the race.
Hillary started freefalling when Bill entered the campaign. Huckabee started falling when he attacked Romney's religion.
Time will tell if i am correct.
-
In other words, his actions and voting record to date. That's where the focus should be and not on the parents
Last time I checked, Barak Obama is the one running for office, not his parents. His fitness for office or lack thereof rests with him, not his parents. So judge the man by his own words and deeds.
-
rich if parents are off-limits why were Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger's parents brought up during his campaign?
-
I think there is a sea change coming in american politics, at least for this race. I think the voting public is tired of rant by rote partisan bickering.
As far as i know neither front runner, McCain or Obama has gone negative to this point, even though they were trailing badly at various stages of the race.
Hillary started freefalling when Bill entered the campaign. Huckabee started falling when he attacked Romney's religion.
Time will tell if i am correct.
I hope that you are correct BT. The people are growing tired of these smashmouth tactics, with the exception of extreme partisans on either side. It seems like the past few election cycles haven't been about why one candidate is a better leader or more qualified, but whether or not they are as bad as their opponent.
-
rich if parents are off-limits why were Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger's parents brought up during his campaign?
Does that somehow make it right? Do you want to take your campaign strategy from the DNC handbook? For the record, I like Arnold. I'd vote for him as my governor over Christine "The Hag" Gregoire any day of the week.
The "they started it" argument didn't work when you were five years old and bickering with your siblings. What makes you think that it's effective now?
-
Does that somehow make it right?
Who said anything about it being right?
I simply asked a question.
Arnold's parents were brought up as a campaign issue.
Now Obama's parents are and there is outrage.
The "they started it" argument didn't work when you were five years
old and bickering with your siblings. What makes you think that it's effective now?
I am not making an argument. I am not trying to "make anything work". I am stating fact.
Why are you ASSuming the worst about a simple question?
You are DEAD WRONG.
Words don't lie. I never stated either case was right.
If I did please show mr. ASSumption?
You can't.
The only thing you can show is you jumping to conclusions to fit your pigoen-hole needs.
My words are my words, not yours, and I never said what you ASSume my words mean.
Quit ASSuming because when you do you get your ASS kicked.
capiche?
-
The reason all campaigns go negative, especially in the national elections, is quite simply because it it easier to convince someone to vote AGAINST a candidate than FOR one. Olebush spend about half his campaign money against Dukakis denouncing the ACLU and suggesting that Dukakis was all about turning rapists lose.
Once he was president, not one peep was heard about either the ACLU and how it should be punished (because doing so would have been both unconstitutional and impossible, given the legal clout of the ACLU) and protecting the people from rapists.
Had Dukakis been elected, bneither issue would have been mentioned, either.
Olebush's minions also spent a lot of time showing how silly Dukakis looked driving a tank. He did, and should never have posed for the film clip, but being president has absolutely NOTHING to do with riding around in a tank.
===================================
McCain offers more of the same. More wars, more deficits due to fighting wars on credit, more secrecy for the government and less privacy for us the citizens.
Both Obama and Clinton would be as big a change as we have had for many years in the presidency.
Obama's presidency would be determined on whom he would choose for advisers. I suspect they would be more conservative than Clinton's advisers.
A second Clinton presidency would be a lot like the Bill Clinton presidency, but without the Monica scandal. The stock market would certainly rally for a period, as it does when a sooner peace and a known quantity is elected.
I think that we can most surely count on the clowns that sabotaged Carter as well as Bill Clinton trying to destroy Hillary or Obama at every opportunity. We have people making huge money on mining federal lands, not cleaning up pollution, not submitting records about what their businesses are doing to their customers (screwing them) and the environment (messing it up). Rush and Sean will be working overtime to wreck any positive motion forward toward healthcare, energy independence, and peace, because their handlers make huge money from these.
If you don't like negative campaigns, don't vote for those who do it.
-
The implication is there, and the implication is clear. I'm not going to go over semantics with you so that you can say "Oh, but I never said that" when clearly your innuendo points otherwise. Why bring up the matter at all unless that was your intent? And if you think you're "kicking someone's ass" by using semantics, you might want to remember that semantics are a rather weak form of debate utilized by *gasp* lawyers and politicians.
Now Obama's parents are and there is outrage.
Evidently not by everyone. You seem to think that it's okay, and Rich didn't have any problem posting the article. Why do you think that is?
The only thing you can show is you jumping to conclusions to fit your pigoen-hole needs.
I don't have pigeon hole needs, frankly I could give a shit less. Like I said, why bring up the matter at all if it wasn't your intent to point out that Dems = bad for going after Arnold's parents? Are you trying to say that you like to think like a Democrat?
My words are my words, not yours, and I never said what you ASSume my words mean
And there's that semantic BS again. Any half-wit can and does use innuendo and implication as a qualifier to a statement, so that they may back out when challenged upon it. It doesn't take an assumption to figure that one out.
capiche?
Here's what I capiche: The opinion of a person such as yourself, who will cross party lines to vote in a primary without thinking twice, and then complains that people of that opposite party that he crossed the line to vote for reek of BO and don't shower, is on a par with the opinion of someone with serious brain damage debating quantum physics.
Capiche?
-
I think there was a certain amount of justice involved in poor C4LG having to sniff the foul-smelling Democrats in his crafty attempt to elect McCain. I find it also a sort of poetic justice that John McCain is not any sort of Christian, and has no intention of making government smaller. He will run up the debt, bugger the currency, borrow from the Chinese to squander it away on an unwinnable war at the same time spouting how we cannot afford decent healthcare for Americans, any sort of subsidies of the sort that are essential for a decent energy policy, or making the government more transparent and less secretive.
By 2012, the dollar will be worth 32?, the war in Iraq will be raging on, the number of uninsured Americans will have increased, and John McCain will have the legal authority and ability to install a rectal minicam in C4LG's rectum to spy on his polyps.
-
I think there was a certain amount of justice involved in poor C4LG having to sniff the foul-smelling Democrats in his crafty attempt to elect McCain. I find it also a sort of poetic justice that John McCain is not any sort of Christian, and has no intention of making government smaller. He will run up the debt, bugger the currency, borrow from the Chinese to squander it away on an unwinnable war at the same time spouting how we cannot afford decent healthcare for Americans, any sort of subsidies of the sort that are essential for a decent energy policy, or making the government more transparent and less secretive.
I'm willing to give McCain the benefit of the doubt. He has an independant streak, and that could be good or bad, depending on your perspective and the legislation and policies that he ends up supporting. Personally, I see Hillary as shrewd and conniving, a modern day Machiavelli or Metternich. Obama is an empty suit who hasn't laid out any plans to accomplish this change he's always talking about. To me, that's all hat and no cattle. Huckabee scares the crap out of me and I couldn't see voting for him if he were the last candidate on earth. My vote isn't set in stone, but that's how I've been leaning for awhile now, ever since Richardson dropped out. If he was picked as a VP, I'm not sure which way I'd go.
And I think McCain is an Episcopalian.
-
>>Yes.....and? Both smoked, my Dad drank, and hit my mom a lot when I was young. And your point would be? We become carbon copies of our parents?? FYI, I've never smoked or hit a woman in my life, but yes, parents CAN provide SOME influence on the adult child's actions.<<
Parent CAN have SOME influence? Don't say something like that just to appease the left sirs. So you've taken the position that it takes a village?
We know parents environment influences behavior, as do parents. Looking at how a person is raised in certainly a valid method in determining why a person thinks and acts the way they do. Every President as been analyzed in a similar manner. This isn't to say he's anything like his parent's, or his wife. Although is would be hard to believe he's much differnet than his spouse simply because he's married to her. Then there's the racist theme of the church he belongs to. These things are all relavant in trying to figure out what this man actually believes because he's certainly not been forthcoming.
-
>>Yes.....and? Both smoked, my Dad drank, and hit my mom a lot when I was young. And your point would be? We become carbon copies of our parents?? FYI, I've never smoked or hit a woman in my life, but yes, parents CAN provide SOME influence on the adult child's actions.<<
Parent CAN have SOME influence? Don't say something like that just to appease the left sirs. So you've taken the position that it takes a village?
I think you know better than that, Rich. Again, are you trying to lay claim that we are our parents?? When should I expect to start hitting my wife?
-
Please sirs, don't start basing your arguments on a false premise. You correctly deride the left for doing so.
Now, I don't know when you're going to start hitting your wife. When do you think this will happen?
See ... it's ridiculous to conclude that's what I'm saying based on what I've said. I would guess, based on the time I've known you here, it's ridiculous to think you would do such a thing. But most people don't have parents who did such things. Certainly your parents influenced you in some way, isn't that what we as Conservatives believe? Does it really take a villiage? Don't we want to be the one's who shape our children, not the State? Isn't that something we constantly battle the left about?
Or don't you think parents should be the people raising their children?
-
The implication is there, and the implication is clear.
Yeah sure now you know my words better than I do?
Are you like living in fantasy land?
I'm not going to go over semantics with you so that you can say "Oh, but I never said that" when clearly your innuendo points otherwise.
Yeah why bother with details and facts when it's easier not too?
Why bring up the matter at all unless that was your intent?
Because I have a point to make and it's a free forum to do that.
It's my point, not yours to hijack and pretend I am making a different point.
And if you think you're "kicking someone's ass" by using semantics,
The truth kicks ass, not I.
Evidently not by everyone.
Obviously
You seem to think that it's okay,
I don't think it is an outrage to discuss a candidate's background and that
can involve their unbringing as long as it is truthful and accurate.
and Rich didn't have any problem posting the article. Why do you think that is?
I don't know, ask Rich, I can't speak for him
I don't have pigeon hole needs, frankly I could give a shit less.
In my opinion you jump to conclusions so you can pigeon-hole people you
disagree with rather than face the facts. It's easier that way.
Like I said, why bring up the matter at all
I didn't bring it up
if it wasn't your intent to point out that Dems = bad for going after Arnold's parents?
My intent to bring it up, which by the way I OWN not you, was to show there is a
double standard.
Are you trying to say that you like to think like a Democrat?
I am not prone to mental illness.
And there's that semantic BS again.
semantics bs aka facts
Any half-wit can and does use innuendo and implication as a qualifier to a statement, so that
they may back out when challenged upon it. It doesn't take an assumption to figure that one out.
Yes and any half-wit can dismiss a simple question has some huge innuendo conspiracy.
Here's what I capiche: The opinion of a person such as yourself, who will cross party lines to vote in a primary without thinking twice
I am not following this, does this mean you have a problem with an American voting in the primary he so chooses?
and then complains that people of that opposite party that he crossed the line to vote for reek of BO and don't shower, is on a par with the opinion of someone with serious brain damage debating quantum physics.
So let me follow this logic. If an American citizen decides to vote in a free and open primary of his choice
he is not to comment/complain or have an opinion on if the people he is standing in line with smell like shit?
Capiche?
Oh can't you come up with your own line in this thread?
-
THe most effective president in recent history was without a doubt LBJ. He was the epitome of shrewd and conniving. If you want things done, this is essential. Compromise is the essence of politics. Hillary has Bill and Bill knows how to get things done better than either Obama or McCain, based on experience. Of course, the greatest danger to Hillary and Obama is the subversion that the oligarchy will try to hit them with. This could also be a problem for McCain if he doesn't behave.
McCain, for me, just PRETENDS to be independent. Examine carefully how his protest against torture went. He blustered and he fussed and bitched and stewed, and nothing was really accomplished. The new Attorney General refuses to label waterboarding as torture and pretty much reserves the right to do anything he damn well chooses.
For me, McCain might act like a tiger, but he's just a big pussy. If he is pushed, he will always back down and do as he's told.
Hillary's biggest problem is mainly that the oligarchy has spent the past dozen years in an active campaign to convince people that she is poison. People say they don;t trust her, but they can't say why. Her only reral blunder was her healthcare plan. It was a defeat, burt so was Cheney's Energy Plan, unless its real purtpose was to keep us hooked o petroleum and to double prices and triple profits, and no one even MENTIONS this. Why? Because there is no immense ad campaign to remind us what an utter disaster it was. But the campaign tyo make people hate Hillary, it has been a daily thing for a long, long time.
The GOP, and that party includes McCain, who campaigned for the unspeakably incompetent Juniorbush and the personification of the Military Industrial Complex, Dick Cheney, screwed up worse than any party in history. They do not deserve to be re elected, and I certainly am not voting for anything they nominate that does not publicly denounce Juniorbush Cheney and all that they stand for on primetime TV
-
>>rich if parents are off-limits why were Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger's parents brought up during his campaign?<<
Because the left is full of double standards. This is just one reason you can't trust them and we should never assume they have good intentions. Look at John McCain. The New York Enquirer (a nod to sirs) endorsed him for the Republican nominee. Then they slimed him with a political smear job Stalin would appreciate.
It's like liberals whining about people going after Chelsea Clinton. They had no problem going after the Bush twins did they?
The left is unethical and dirty. They won't let anything get in the way of their socialist utopian dream, so I suggest trusted them to be anything but what they are is dangerous.
-
Capiche?
Oh can't you come up with your own line in this thread?
=============================================
This is a line too stale for Tony Soprano or "Big Pussy" Bompisero to use.
-
Please sirs, don't start basing your arguments on a false premise. You correctly deride the left for doing so. Now, I don't know when you're going to start hitting your wife. When do you think this will happen?
You tell me. You're the one implying that our parents are somehow instrumental, via this article, in our being like them.
See ... it's ridiculous to conclude that's what I'm saying based on what I've said. I would guess, based on the time I've known you here, it's ridiculous to think you would do such a thing.
You're right, it is.......but that hasn't stopped you from trying to lay a similar deduction of Obama, based on his parents, who from what I've been lead to believe aren't even alive any more. If that's true, it's all the more reason to consider this thread largely moot. Now, if you started one regarding Obama's current pastor, THEN, you'd have some meat to your arguement
Certainly your parents influenced you in some way, isn't that what we as Conservatives believe?
Isn't that what I've said already? Some, yes. You seem to be picking out the worst of Obama's parents and have concluded some transferrence of those (such as my reference to wife beating), without any shred of support, outside of the notion that parents CAN have SOME influence on their adult children. How you can make such a leap is what's putting you on the defensive here.
Or don't you think parents should be the people raising their children?
Raise, yes. Make them clones of themselves, no. But at least now I know from what part of left field that reference to "village" came from
-
You're being silly. Forget it.
The leftists appreciate your support.
-
Yea, tell that to the leftists in here, and ask how much "support" you think I provide them with. May prove to be on par with this thread of yours ::)
-
Fine, parenting has nothing to do with how children turn out. The proof is that sirs doesn't beat his wife.
Get a fucking clue.
-
(http://www.gems-afghan.com/images/binLaden.jpg)
You know ... if Osama shaved his beard off ....
(http://www.drudgereport.com/oa.jpg)
-
Fine, parenting has nothing to do with how children turn out.
Strange how I never said, or even implied that. But, you go with whatever works for you, Rich
-
Insert Quote
You know ... if Osama shaved his beard off ....
And you wonder why you were attacked. Here's a fucking clue Rich, why don't you grab one.
-
You didn't?
According to you parenting has nothing to do with how children form opinions or live their lives. You use the fact that you don't beat your wife as proof. You seem to think that I'm saying only bad traits are passed on to children. When did I ever say that? I'm saying parents have a great effect on how their children behave and believe in the future. You keep saying that's not true because you don't beat your wife. You go on to say that because his parents are dead, this line of inquiry is moot. Why? Because they're dead? They weren't dead when he was a child. Does certain death render everything prior to it moot?
You're not making any sense.
-
Fat man ... get the stick out of your ass (unless you like that sort of thing), and try and get a sense of humor.
(Boy, will I be glad when fat man stops menstruating)
-
Fat man ... get the stick out of your ass (unless you like that sort of thing),
Nope, I'm a top Rich. Probably too much info for the rest of the forum, but since you seem to be infatuated with my homosexuality, I figured I'd clue you in.
and try and get a sense of humor.
I have a sense of humor. I like a lot of comedy, even a lot of political comedy that lampoons left and right alike. On the other hand, your post wasn't funny. Not even remotely. It's the kind of mean-spirited shit that you see the Hillary camp pull. Maybe you're a secret Hillary supporter. It makes no difference because it's not funny. It's about as funny as a traffic accident involving a school bus.
(Boy, will I be glad when fat man stops menstruating)
I explained to you yesterday that I don't have a vagina and thus do not mentruate. Evidently this fact is too much for you to understand. There are plenty of websites online that you can investigate, and they will all tell you the same thing: men don't menstruate. They may also explain why. I suggested yesterday that you take a community college course in biology so that you may understand this. Perhaps your economic means won't enable you to this course of action, in that case I would suggest speaking with the financial aid office at that community college. If your current education level won't allow you to take a community college course, there are many GED programs available also.
Hopefully I've been of some assistance.
-
I kindly suggest ya'll just quit this mockery of debating. Rich, you are not debating, you are just attacking. For example, you mentioned children and the influence parents have. Can you produce some studeis that address this?
I might suggest, FM, that replies to non-debate might fit in the category of "superfluous"?
-
According to you parenting has nothing to do with how children form opinions or live their lives. You use the fact that you don't beat your wife as proof.
Pay attention please, because this is the 3rd time I've posted this: According to sirs, Parents CAN provide SOME influence on the adult child's actions. Now, how does that translate to "has nothing to do with their children"?
You seem to think that I'm saying only bad traits are passed on to children.
YOU're the one that latched onto whatever bad traits Obama'a parents had, and apprently immediately concluded how bad Obama and his "secrets", had to be as a result of his 'parenting"
When did I ever say that?
The thread title kinda gave it away
You're not making any sense.
While you're making your position painfully clear
-
>>YOU're the one that latched onto whatever bad traits Obama'a parents had, and apprently immediately concluded how bad Obama and his "secrets", had to be as a result of his 'parenting"<<
Whatever.
We still cool?
-
Yea, we're cool
-
Good. Debate partners are getting scarce.