DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on July 31, 2008, 07:37:09 PM
-
Hmmm, let's see here, Obama & Company pull out the race card, & despite zip evidence/examples of such, claim McCain & the GOP are going to try and frighten Americans to not vote for him because of the color of his skin. McCain accurately responds with highlighting Obama's pulling of the race card, yet it's McCain trying negative campaign against Obama (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/31/america/campaign.php)
But there's no media bias..............naaaaaaaaaaaaaa
-
Well sure , that is all he has got.
-
Uhh, remind me again, which side consistently tries to insert Barak's middle name prominently between the first and last names?
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/12/barack_hussein.html (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/12/barack_hussein.html)
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/31/america/campaign.php (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/31/america/campaign.php) - -
But some conservative talk-show hosts have taken, for example, to referring repeatedly to "Barack Hussein Obama," presumably underlining his father's foreign roots and the fact that some of his ancestors were Muslim.
(International Herald Tribune)
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Robocall_trashes_Barack_Hussein_Obama.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Robocall_trashes_Barack_Hussein_Obama.html)
The Obama campaign has released a recording (mp3) it says came from a Nevadan's answering machine of an anonymous robocall that criticizes Obama for taking money from special interests while repeating, four times, his rarely used middle name: "Hussein."
"I'm calling with some important information about Barack Hussein Obama," the call begins, before saying that "Barack Hussein Obama says he doesn't take money from Washington lobbyists or special interest groups but the record is clear that he does."
After mentioning his full name once more, the call concludes:
"You just can't take a chance on Barack Hussein Obama."
I can tell ya who's playing the race card here. It ain't Obama, that's for sure.
-
A) It IS his middle name
B) Show us, PLEASE, where the GOP and/or McCain are even adding it, in ANYTHING remotely resembling the campaign
C) Obama pulled this dungheap of a move
-
There is that, and also, his vision and his competence.
-
Are you ashamed of Hussein? It is his real middle name and it isn't strange for prominent people to be called by all three .
I am not old enough to remember whether there was ever any importance attached to the F in JFK or the M in RMN but both of these guys got elected with funny middle names.
For BHO Hussein is an old country name ,such as many of us bear in the middle spot where it honors a grand without bothering current life. Anyone truely bothered by it is being silly.
I haven't heard of McCain mentioning it at all , or in any other way alludeing to his race as if it were a disqualifier. BHO himself mentions it regularly because it is his main qualifier for the office. There are few color lines left to break since Jackie Robinson many color lines have fallen , and no where is there a colorline of grester signifigance. Barak breaking the colorline is a very romantic idea and an attractive idea even to people who know nothing elese about BHO. This is very good for BHO because it is the best thing he offers , every other quality he has is muted next to this.
-
There is that, and also, his vision and his competence.
That would be nice to see , what has he shown in vision and competence?
He reads his teleprompter well but not better than Reagan , he speaks on his own as well as Dan Quale , but this isn't a big thing is it?
Some of my favoriate politicians use teleprompters , I am not relly objecting , I am just wondering what we have ever seen him do that would demonstrate a vision or a competence?
-
I think it's hilarious that you try to minimize the significance of mentioning Obama's full middle name, as if it were as innocuous as the "Fitzgerald" in John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Very rarely was the full "Fitzgerald" mentioned, it was either "JFK" or "John F. Kennedy" or just "Kennedy." The Republican supporters I cited (and believe me, they are but the tip of the iceberg) go out of their way to mention the middle name in full and almost as often as they refer to the candidate at all.
To those who say, "Well, it IS his middle name," I ask, how many times do you, in referring to ANYBODY, refer to them by their full name, including full middle name? How many times was Bush referred to as "George Walker Bush?" Cheney, I don't even KNOW his middle name. Clinton, almost never referred to by three full names, John Edwards, we don't even know the middle name, Harry S. Truman (I don't think the "S" actually stood for anything, FDR almost never referred to as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Ike often Dwight D. Eisenhower, but you'd almost never hear the middle name. It's bullshit to claim that the name Hussain is used because "It IS his middle name." Nobody gives a shit what his middle name is, any more than anyone else's middle name - - it's used for one reason, to excite anti-Muslim prejudice.
There is no doubt the race card is in play. There's no doubt it is the Republicans who have put it in play. Whether it works or not will depend on how racist the American voters still are. If they're all as non-racist as has been claimed here, they'll see right through this ugly tactic and show their displeasure at the polls. If they're as racist as I think they are, they'll silently take this "Hussein" shit as vindication of their own racism and vote as their racism dictates.
-
A) It IS his middle name
B) Show us, PLEASE, where the GOP and/or McCain are even adding it, in ANYTHING remotely resembling the campaign
C) Obama pulled this dungheap of a move
As I have told my local conservative knuckleheaded radio talker, the insertion of Barack Obama's (yes, it is his middle name) middle name, Hussein, every time they mention him is merely one more of the childish and petty little ways of trying to annoy Democrats and paint their opponents are "terrorists", "other" or suspect in some way.
I list it along with the GOP losers who like to say "the Democrat Party" and "Librulls hait America".
Of course, McCain would never say it. He doesn't have to what with Rush, Sean, Beck and local talkers saying it ad nauseam across the country non-stop.
Obama has done nothing but respond like an adult to childish nonsense from petty children trying to win by using the politics of destruction.
Obama is the obviously better choice between the two. McCain's time passed 8 years ago when he laid down against the Masters of Bullshit and Lies.
-
I think it's hilarious that you try to minimize the significance of mentioning Obama's full middle name, as if it were as innocuous as the "Fitzgerald" in John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Very rarely was the full "Fitzgerald" mentioned, it was either "JFK" or "John F. Kennedy" or just "Kennedy." The Republican supporters I cited (and believe me, they are but the tip of the iceberg) go out of their way to mention the middle name in full and almost as often as they refer to the candidate at all.
To those who say, "Well, it IS his middle name," I ask, how many times do you, in referring to ANYBODY, refer to them by their full name, including full middle name? How many times was Bush referred to as "George Walker Bush?" Cheney, I don't even KNOW his middle name. Clinton, almost never referred to by three full names, John Edwards, we don't even know the middle name, Harry S. Truman (I don't think the "S" actually stood for anything, FDR almost never referred to as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Ike often Dwight D. Eisenhower, but you'd almost never hear the middle name. It's bullshit to claim that the name Hussain is used because "It IS his middle name." Nobody gives a shit what his middle name is, any more than anyone else's middle name - - it's used for one reason, to excite anti-Muslim prejudice.
There is no doubt the race card is in play. There's no doubt it is the Republicans who have put it in play. Whether it works or not will depend on how racist the American voters still are. If they're all as non-racist as has been claimed here, they'll see right through this ugly tactic and show their displeasure at the polls. If they're as racist as I think they are, they'll silently take this "Hussein" shit as vindication of their own racism and vote as their racism dictates.
I think you are pointing out that Racists will not vote for BHO , I conceed that. I don't mean to defend any racist from the consequence of his own stupidity. I don't think much of someone who votes against BHO for being black.
But That is all BHO has got , there is no reason to vote for him .
-
Referring to him as Hussein is a clever way of providing the rubes, hicks, bumpkins, yokels and fools a reason to oppose him and still not feel like racists. It sort of reinforces the Obama/Osama similarity as well. This is why there are so many slow thinkers who still think he is a closet Muslim and will declare a jihad on Christians the day after he is sworn in (on a Koran, of course).
McCain's handlers know that this is the best way to win, and by bringing it up first, it puts McCain in the spotlight denying his racism. McCain, of course, is the guy who opposed MLK Day more than once.
Though not for racist reasons, of course. There are those who believe that he actually wanted to celebrate Lawrence Welks' Birthday instead.
Just wait a while, and you will see that McCain can actually outstoop Obama.
-
<<But That is all BHO has got , there is no reason to vote for him .>>
Oh no, he's got a lot more than that. He's got the good judgment and the courage and independence of mind to have OPPOSED the war from the get-go, when all the "experienced" and "knowledgeable" folks endorsed it in lock-step. Credit where credit is due. He showed more sense than the "President," his entire cabinet and the Democratic "opposition."
-
<<But That is all BHO has got , there is no reason to vote for him .>>
Oh no, he's got a lot more than that. He's got the good judgment and the courage and independence of mind to have OPPOSED the war from the get-go, when all the "experienced" and "knowledgeable" folks endorsed it in lock-step. Credit where credit is due. He showed more sense than the "President," his entire cabinet and the Democratic "opposition."
Ok two things now and on one of them I am definately against him.
After he shifts twards the center and proposes a permanant level of troops , or a withdrawal on the same terms as President Bush allows for , I am still against him because I don't think there is a sincere bone in his body.
If Sincerity can be considered a thing . We are now discussing three things and two of them are negative to me.
-
But That is all BHO has got , there is no reason to vote for him .
WRONG.
BHO knows that offshore drilling is just a Big Oil wet dream that behooves only them in the future. Drilling now will only allow them to keep us hooked on $5 (or $10 or $20) a gallon gas in 10 years when we'll be really hurting and ready for a major fix.
BHO knows that Americans want to re-build their own nation and create jobs HERE in the US by investing in our own infrastructure.
BHO knows that Americans just want to get along and not be divided in the name of maintaining political power.
BHO knows that Iraqis (and 70% of Americans) want our troops out of Iraq years ago and is ready to make it happen in a swift but safe manner.
BHO understands that Americans are hurting and that people are lining up at free clinics for hours to get a chance at an eye appointment or free breast exam only to be turned away. And in the richest country on earth, that is a disgusting affront to humanity.
BHO does not want to start any more wars.
BHO believes in leading nations into democracy is better done by example than by pointing a gun.
BHO believes in encouraging fathers to be active in the lives of their children.
BHO is an exciting new voice in American politics.
-
<<BHO is an exciting new voice in American politics.>>
Brass, what do you think about his talk about moving the war to Afghanistan?
-
Personally, I don't think there is any reason for us to be in Afghanistan either but it is more in line with the idea that Osama bin Laden was once there and that there were actually training camps there. (The only reason I can think of for Bush having sent us there in the first place was because BIG OIL wanted that pipeline that the Talibani had shot down many times over when Hamid Kharzai was negotiating with them on behalf of BIG OIL.)
Myself, I know diddly about how to conduct military forces beyond hundreds of games of RISK but it seems to me the best way to win a war (based on my RISK games, mind you) is to consolidate our troops when you're over-extended and abandon countries/conflicts that you had no business getting involved with in the first place when you knew you couldn't hold it.
And you damned sure don't go using men to take a country because of hubris or plain old desire and that is exactly why we're in Iraq.
Afghanistan (if we believe the mainstream stances) is unfinished business. And if BHO wants to send them there, I trust him enough to go with that belief till I find out different.
-
But That is all BHO has got , there is no reason to vote for him .
WRONG.
BHO knows that offshore drilling is just a Big Oil wet dream that behooves only them in the future. Drilling now will only allow them to keep us hooked on $5 (or $10 or $20) a gallon gas in 10 years when we'll be really hurting and ready for a major fix.
This is something that doesn't matter as much as it will seem to , bringing ANWAR into production will have the opposite effect on speculation as keeping it unused would so the effect would be immeadiate. But eventually cheap oil will still become unavailible and we ought to prepare for that whether we drill more in Alaska or not , does McCain still oppose this? I loose track .
BHO knows that Americans want to re-build their own nation and create jobs HERE in the US by investing in our own infrastructure.
No he is for the minimum wage being raised , which exports jobs as a direct action.
BHO knows that Americans just want to get along and not be divided in the name of maintaining political power.
Ok , who would disagree with that?BHO knows that Iraqis (and 70% of Americans) want our troops out of Iraq years ago and is ready to make it happen in a swift but safe manner.
Ok , who would disagree with that? Iraquis, that is who. I think the drawdown order is imminent and doesn't depend on who is elected so much as it depends on Iriqui readyness.
BHO understands that Americans are hurting and that people are lining up at free clinics for hours to get a chance at an eye appointment or free breast exam only to be turned away. And in the richest country on earth, that is a disgusting affront to humanity.
This might be a real Issue , what does he want to do about it ?BHO does not want to start any more wars.
Not up to him is it? If another Osama Bin Laden declaires another war on us Obama will be at war whether he likes or doesn't.BHO believes in leading nations into democracy is better done by example than by pointing a gun.
Ok , who would disagree with that?BHO believes in encouraging fathers to be active in the lives of their children.
BravoBHO is an exciting new voice in American politics.
Edwards redux
-
No he is for the minimum wage being raised , which exports jobs as a direct action.
Quote
========================
Yeah, sure. Ronald McDonald and Burger King are transferring burgerflipping and deep frying to Mangalore even as we speak.
There are very few jobs that pay the minimum wage that can be transferred, in reatity.
-
No he is for the minimum wage being raised , which exports jobs as a direct action.
Quote
========================
Yeah, sure. Ronald McDonald and Burger King are transferring burgerflipping and deep frying to Mangalore even as we speak.
There are very few jobs that pay the minimum wage that can be transferred, in reality.
Burger flipping cannot leave , but Television assembly can be done anywhere.
Denial of the harm that the minimum wage can do is just denial.
It is like believing in perpetual motion to believe that any economic decision can have no negative consequence.
I do believe that I can produce more value with my work than the typical Chinese worker , but eighteen times as much? There is some artificiality involved and it becomes more evident as the topical Chinese worker becomes more modern .
-
I think it's hilarious that you try to minimize the significance of mentioning Obama's full middle name, as if it were as innocuous as the "Fitzgerald" in John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Very rarely was the full "Fitzgerald" mentioned, it was either "JFK" or "John F. Kennedy" or just "Kennedy." The Republican supporters I cited (and believe me, they are but the tip of the iceberg) go out of their way to mention the middle name in full and almost as often as they refer to the candidate at all.
Don't know where you lived but i heard Fitzgerald all the time when people referred to Kennedy. Maybe it was to remind folks of his Irish heritage. maybe it was to remind folks that he was descended from the Fitzgeralds of Boston fame. Maybe it was to secure the Catholic vote. Maybe it was to shame any who wouldn't vote for a man based on his religion.
Bobby's middle name was Francis. Heard that a lot too.
Barack's middle name is Hussein. Big deal. Doubt that is a secret to anyone.
-
<<Don't know where you lived but i heard Fitzgerald all the time when people referred to Kennedy.>>
You do know where I lived, but maybe you forgot. I lived in Toronto, but we had regular weekly subscriptions to TIME and LIFE magazines and a monthly to Esquire Magazine. And read the New York Times every Sunday. And watched the news on NBC or CBS every night. I don't know where YOU lived, but believe me, although we all knew what the F stood for, it was not all that often that we saw it in print. Nowhere NEAR the number of times the hatchet men of the War Party use Obamas middle name.
<<Maybe it was to remind folks of his Irish heritage.>>
Yeah, that must be it. "Kennedy" always sounded kinda Jewish to me.
<<maybe it was to remind folks that he was descended from the Fitzgeralds of Boston fame.>>
Yeah, Honey Fitz, the last hurrah, crooked Democratic big-city politics and all that. Just to remind the voters in the rest of the country just kind of political swamp he came from, despite the Harvard veneer. Smart move.
<<Maybe it was to secure the Catholic vote. Maybe it was to shame any who wouldn't vote for a man based on his religion.>>
Right. John Kennedy from Boston. Son of Joe Kennedy, the anti-British bootlegger and whiskey baron of Boston, the father of nine children. An Irish Catholic? Him? Who woulda thunk?
<<Bobby's middle name was Francis. Heard that a lot too.>>
LOL. Oh yeah. All the time. Sure, BT.
<<Barack's middle name is Hussein. Big deal. Doubt that is a secret to anyone.>>
Fitzgerald wasn't a secret either, neither was Delano, neither was Milhous, but nobody harped on any of them like those Republicans are harping on Obama. And there are three very obvious reasons for it. Racism, racism, and racism.
-
Fitzgerald wasn't a secret either, neither was Delano, neither was Milhous, but nobody harped on any of them like those Republicans are harping on Obama. And there are three very obvious reasons for it. Racism, racism, and racism.
I think you are exaggerateing the "Hussein" effect and you are exaggerateing the "Hussein " mentioning effort.
I know it has happened , but could you find an example published today? this week? I bet when you find a good example it will be a month old.
But why would you perform this exaggeration , simply your Racism, racism, and racism.
-
<<I know it has happened , but could you find an example published today? this week? I bet when you find a good example it will be a month old.>>
plane I just Googled once and in under thirty seconds I had all three of the examples I posted. There were more than ten pages to go in my search. What I posted was the tip of the iceberg, as I already mentioned. I gotta go eat something, had a very late lunch and now I'm hungry as a sunuvabitch.
-
Hard to believe what I just saw and heard on CNN a couple of minutes ago. Some lady asks McCain at a town hall meeting "You promised a different, respectful etc. campaign again and now we just saw your ad comparing Obama to Britney Spears, have you flip-flopped?"
McCain basically said, We're very proud of that ad, I'd like to debate the issues seriously with Senator Obama - - absolutely nothing about the ad (other than that "we" are very proud of it) - - THIS is the Straight Talk Express?? Anybody who's not a total idiot can look at that exchange and figure out that McCain's a bullshitter, he's fallen to the sleaziest kind of campaign tactics - - exactly what he said earlier he wouldn't do - - and his credibility has to be zilch. He actually looked like he was AFRAID of the woman who asked him the question - - stammered at bit at the start of his response then slipped into this nonsensical, nonresponsive patter that said just about nothing and certainly nothing that answered the question.
This guy is toast. He's not just gonna lose, he's gonna lose in a LANDSLLIDE. He's not even a good liar.
-
Hard to believe what I just saw and heard on CNN a couple of minutes ago. Some lady asks McCain at a town hall meeting "You promised a different, respectful etc. campaign again and now we just saw your ad comparing Obama to Britney Spears, have you flip-flopped?"
McCain basically said, We're very proud of that ad, I'd like to debate the issues seriously with Senator Obama - - absolutely nothing about the ad (other than that "we" are very proud of it) - - THIS is the Straight Talk Express?? Anybody who's not a total idiot can look at that exchange and figure out that McCain's a bullshitter, he's fallen to the sleaziest kind of campaign tactics - - exactly what he said earlier he wouldn't do - - and his credibility has to be zilch. He actually looked like he was AFRAID of the woman who asked him the question - - stammered at bit at the start of his response then slipped into this nonsensical, nonresponsive patter that said just about nothing and certainly nothing that answered the question.
This guy is toast. He's not just gonna lose, he's gonna lose in a LANDSLLIDE. He's not even a good liar.
I have seen that commercial , it is sort of mocking in tone , but the serious point is that BHO is all sizzle and no steak.
the amount of sizzle is remarkable ,but where is the beef?
-
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/mccain-repudiates-hussein-obama-remarks/ (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/mccain-repudiates-hussein-obama-remarks/)
Top of the list is from Febuary.
eight of ten are not origional , but are like us , commenting on .
This isn't seriously anything , better to mock his ears , which glow when backlit like twin halos.
-
<<I have seen that commercial , it is sort of mocking in tone , but the serious point is that BHO is all sizzle and no steak.>>
The ad was a personal attack on Obama. Comparing him to Britney Spears was a cheap shot.
"Sort of mocking in tone" is just another way of saying it ridiculed Obama's glitzy style. That's saying absolutely NOTHING about issues while saying something very negative about the candidate's style.
Obama had a great response, I saw him asking McCain (rhetorically, McCain wasn't there,) given the serious issues that beset the country "Is that [i.e., the comparison to Britney Spears] the best you can do?" or "Is that your best shot?"
"All sizzle and no steak" is also a personal attack, it's attacking the guy for sizzling AND there's no evidence supplied of the "no steak," just McCain's word that there's no steak.
Personally, I think this ad was a desperate and pathetic effort. It's sure to backfire on McCain. When I watched him defending himself to a tall, angry black woman, he looked like an almost-senile demented old man making childish excuses with his hand caught in a cookie jar. He talked and he talked, but he said nothing. Bad move - - if he didn't intend to acknowledge error, he should have dealt with the woman's question in one short sentence and then moved on immediately, as if it had no importance. Just by dancing around for so long on it, and saying nothing of substance, he (1) admitted the importance of the issue by the time devoted and (2) showed the audience that he was a bullshitter and probably a liar too, and not even good at either.
-
<<I have seen that commercial , it is sort of mocking in tone , but the serious point is that BHO is all sizzle and no steak.>>
The ad was a personal attack on Obama. Comparing him to Britney Spears was a cheap shot.
"Sort of mocking in tone" is just another way of saying it ridiculed Obama's glitzy style. That's saying absolutely NOTHING about issues while saying something very negative about the candidate's style.
Obama had a great response, I saw him asking McCain (rhetorically, McCain wasn't there,) given the serious issues that beset the country "Is that [i.e., the comparison to Britney Spears] the best you can do?" or "Is that your best shot?"
"All sizzle and no steak" is also a personal attack, it's attacking the guy for sizzling AND there's no evidence supplied of the "no steak," just McCain's word that there's no steak.
Personally, I think this ad was a desperate and pathetic effort. It's sure to backfire on McCain. When I watched him defending himself to a tall, angry black woman, he looked like an almost-senile demented old man making childish excuses with his hand caught in a cookie jar. He talked and he talked, but he said nothing. Bad move - - if he didn't intend to acknowledge error, he should have dealt with the woman's question in one short sentence and then moved on immediately, as if it had no importance. Just by dancing around for so long on it, and saying nothing of substance, he (1) admitted the importance of the issue by the time devoted and (2) showed the audience that he was a bullshitter and probably a liar too, and not even good at either.
No wonder Obama fears real debate so much.
In a face to face debate Obama would overwhelm McCain so basdly that the audience would boo against the overdogs cruelty.
Hahahahaha...
Any way if Obama wanted to answer McCain directly he certainly could , McCain is begging for it , but Obama is too fearfull of being seaparated from his teleprompter.
"All sizzle and no steak" is also a personal attack, it's attacking the guy for sizzling AND there's no evidence supplied of the "no steak," just McCain's word that there's no steak.
Right now I am the one asking where the beef is , there is no point in denying Obama has charm , but while the charm is easy to see , his actual goals for use of the Presidency are not clear at all.
-
<<Any way if Obama wanted to answer McCain directly he certainly could , McCain is begging for it , but Obama is too fearfull of being seaparated from his teleprompter.>>
He HAS answered McCain directly and IMHO tore a huge strip off him. He spoke of the serious issues America was facing, the choices the country was going to have to make that would affect them and the next generation and the next.
Then he said that you'd think, given the magnitude of the problem, that the nation would be witness to some serious debate.
Then he said, with just the right amount of disgust in his voice, a very small amount, careful not to overdo it, that instead we got ads about Britney Spears (and some other fluff, I forget who) and this was the best McCain could come up with. That he'd promised earlier in the campaign to avoid that type of campaigning, to set a higher standard . . .
I gotta tell ya, he spoke so well; the voice was resonant, controlled; he paused in all the right places, just long enough to let the point sink in; the cadence, the rise and fall of tone, were letter-perfect. He just TRASHED McCain. I don't think anyone who (a) saw McCain's ad and (b) witnessed Obama's response, could have a single ounce of respect left for McCain. Even worse if that person had witnessed McCain defending the ad to an angry black woman. He looked just like a guilty child being scolded and making up pitiful excuses to avoid the tongue-lashing.
-
Serious debate ?
About what?
Still no beef ,.... McCain is right to point out that BHO is light weight.
Brittany Spears could deliver the same speach about not compareing her to Barak Obama . Perhaps with greater justifacation, she is serious about her business.
If BHO fears not to debate then he should debate , otherwise he should listen to the growing chorous ,,...
Where is the beef?
-
"All sizzle and no steak" is also a personal attack, it's attacking the guy for sizzling AND there's no evidence supplied of the "no steak," just McCain's word that there's no steak.
Not true. One of the the reasons McCain is keeping close, and in some polls amongst likely voters is ahead, is the nagging feeling among responders that when all is said and done they don't know who Obama is.
This after a well publicized primary season. This after all the coverage of his meteoric rise. This after the boatloads of favorable ink in the MSM and dead tree press.
People are lukewarm to McCain, but he is a known quantity and a safe fallback vote.
The all sizzle no steak label isn't a new one. Bill and Hillary both pointed that out during the primary.
Obama is allowing others to define him. That could be his undoing.
Is Bob Shrum involved in his campaign?
-
A man of unusual and peculiar sensibilities, David H. Souter came to the Supreme Court as a complete enigma.
http://www.oyez.org/justices/david_h_souter/
Oyez here comes the stealth canadate to dissapoint all of his backers , only this time the enigma is on his way to Executive office from the Senate.
As far as we know he is a perfect Liberal , but he is willing to compromise a lot for the sake of votes , will he remain compromised for the sake of re-election?
Souter has been a let down , Obama might also , but maybe not , what do we know now?
-
If you want to allege the guy has no ideas, that's one thing. The "all sizzle and" is a personal attack aimed at Obama's popularity (at least IMHO) and whether it actually is or not, that's how it looks to everyone I know, based on the timing, i.e., coming in the wake of a foreign tour that McSame could never hope to emulate, knowing how much he and his "President" are despised by the people of the rest of the world.
-
Obama is not a lightweight. He has said what he will do. He addresses healthcare, getting disentangled from Iraq, ending special favors in the tax code for the extremely wealthy. He has a plan.
McCain offers no serious plan for Iraq, will not address healthcare, incorrectly claims that offshore and ANWAR drilling will lower gasoline prices soon, and basically offers nothing better than Juniuorbushy other than the absence of Cheney and a few more IQ points. Plus, he's ancient, beyond retirement.
He doesn't need the job, and much more important, the job doesn't need him. He got beat pout in the 2000 primaries by the lightest weight candidate of all time. He was personally insulted by the Juniorbushies, and a couple years later, he's hugging said Doofus-In-Chief like his long lost grandson.
There was a time McCain should have run: 2000. His time is long past. He is now toast. Badly(what's that smell coming from the kitchen?) burned toast.
-
I have to admit, I've been loving these massive redirectional efforts by our hard core leftists. The story was on Obama's blatant application of the race card, directly claiming how the GOP was going to try and scare the electorate from voting for him, because of his skin color, and the best the left can do is trying to put it in the ignore box, and claim, without evidence of course, of how widespread McCain and his contintent pull out the race card, and how swell a guy Obama's supposed to be.
FYI for those leftists, talk show hosts aren't the ones running for office, nor are they connected to the McCain camp. So the continued grossly obvious misrepresentation efforts, are pretty transparent for all to see. Just so you know
-
FYI for those leftists, talk show hosts aren't the ones running for office, nor are they connected to the McCain camp. So the continued grossly obvious misrepresentation efforts, are pretty transparent for all to see. Just so you know
=======================================
Rush and Hannity and the rest of these clowns are doing what they are paid to do: defend the Oligarchy. They are npot entertainers, they are propagandists.
Just so you know.
It hardly matters to McCain why people vote for him or against Obama. He is desperate. This is his last, futile gasp. After this, there is only the golf course, the old folks' home and Arlington Cemetery. He must prevail, and will do so with as little personal damage as possible.
Every day, Obama's campaign offices are bombarded with racist slurs and death threats, and none of this being reported, but it is being received and noted.
The swiftboaters will float in, like unwelcome turds in a punchbowl, after the boost that Obama gets from his nominating convention.
-
Not up to him is it? If another Osama Bin Laden declaires another war on us Obama will be at war whether he likes or doesn't.
ObL is not another country and can't declare war.
-
I guess some people have never heard of surrogates. McCain doesn't have to do the dirty work, there are plenty of his supporters to do it for him. That's because McCain and his supporters clearly represent what RFK referred to once as "the darker impulses of the American spirit," war, violence, torture and conquest. Those who support McCain are committed to the darker impulses, and thus they are ready, willing and able to do what it takes, without scruple, fully conscious of the fact that it's better for McCain to keep his own hands clean.
-
I guess some people have never heard of surrogates. McCain doesn't have to do the dirty work, there are plenty of his supporters to do it for him.
How convenient....yet again, lack of facts/proof, is proof positive.
FYI for those leftists, talk show hosts aren't the ones running for office, nor are they connected to the McCain camp. So the continued grossly obvious misrepresentation efforts, are pretty transparent for all to see. Just so you know
=======================================
Rush and Hannity and the rest of these clowns are doing what they are paid to do: defend the Oligarchy. They are npot entertainers, they are propagandists.
And despite that unsubstantiated outlandish OPINION, still no examples from the McCain camp bringing race into the campaign. Obama just did, directly. But we need to ignore that and keep dumping on talk radio and Fox news, right? Anything to NOT talk about what Obama pulled. SOP
-
MT: <<I guess some people have never heard of surrogates. McCain doesn't have to do the dirty work, there are plenty of his supporters to do it for him. >>
sirs: <<How convenient....yet again, lack of facts/proof, is proof positive.>>
-----------------------
No, it isn't lack of fact or lack of proof that is proof positive. It is simple common sense which every individual (except, apparently, right-wing extremists) is blessed with. Why on earth would McCain want to dirty his hands with playing the race card himself or through his campaign staffers, when there are so many of his supporters ready, willing and able to do his work for him?
McCain had nothing to do with the racist attacks on Obama. Nothing that we will ever be able to prove, anyway. But the fact remains, that he is the kind of person who attracts these racist sleazeballs to his side, so that they will do what he no longer has to do. When your surrogates are willing to do it all for you, you don't have to lift a finger and you are able to say "I had nothing to do with it." But what is it about him that would draw all this racist sleazeball support?
Bottom line, the race card HAS been played, and it was played by the opponents of Obama. McCain methinks doth clearly protest too much.
-
Yea, the race card has been played, DIRECTLY BY OBAMA. Can't say the same about McCain, outside of your invalid, unsubstantiated 7degrees of supporter seperation
-
Let me explain this to you very simply in strict chronological order:
1. McSame supporters play the race card against Obama. Big time. Numerous examples, some very current, were displayed in this thread.
2. Obama complains about the underhanded racist attacks.
3. McCain staffers wail, bitch and moan that Obama has "dealt the race card from the bottom of the deck."
This constitutes DISHONESTY on the part of the MCCAIN CAMPAIGN because the campaign (not the surrogates) accuses Obama of introducing the race issue into the campaign, when it was put there originally by McCain supporters.
Got it? (no, of course not, you guys NEVER get it)
Fortunately the American public will get it and condemn McCain, through his supporters, of being racist sleazebags. At least when they vote, they'll know what each side represents. Obama, a new approach, change (which maybe he'll deliver on or not, another issue) and McSame, politics as usual, the politics of fear and division.
-
Let's actually make it even simpler:
McCain...ZIP racist attacks or even references on Obama
Obama....paraphrased; "McCain & company will try to convince you to not vote for me because I'm black"
Race card played, McCain: 0, Obama: big fat 1
-
Not up to him is it? If another Osama Bin Laden declaires another war on us Obama will be at war whether he likes or doesn't.
ObL is not another country and can't declare war.
I wish you had told him this before he did declare War and started a bombing campaign.
Which is entirely beside the point , Barak Obama will be a war president if he is elected he has no choice about it.
-
Let's actually make it even simpler:
McCain...ZIP racist attacks or even references on Obama
Obama....paraphrased; "McCain & company will try to convince you to not vote for me because I'm black"
Race card played, McCain: 0, Obama: big fat 1
Pretty deep paraphrasing there. No chance you could post the real comment and see if people can make up their own minds?
-
Let's actually make it even simpler:
McCain...ZIP racist attacks or even references on Obama
Obama....paraphrased; "McCain & company will try to convince you to not vote for me because I'm black"
Race card played, McCain: 0, Obama: big fat 1
Pretty deep paraphrasing there. No chance you could post the real comment and see if people can make up their own minds?
If you had grasped the initial post to this thread, that I posted, you wouldn't have had to ask......but for those who didn't pay attention to the initial post: "Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, 'He's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name.' You know, 'He doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."'
-
FYI for those leftists, talk show hosts aren't the ones running for office, nor are they connected to the McCain camp. So the continued grossly obvious misrepresentation efforts, are pretty transparent for all to see. Just so you know
=======================================
Rush and Hannity and the rest of these clowns are doing what they are paid to do: defend the Oligarchy. They are npot entertainers, they are propagandists.
Just so you know.
It hardly matters to McCain why people vote for him or against Obama. He is desperate. This is his last, futile gasp. After this, there is only the golf course, the old folks' home and Arlington Cemetery. He must prevail, and will do so with as little personal damage as possible.
Every day, Obama's campaign offices are bombarded with racist slurs and death threats, and none of this being reported, but it is being received and noted.
The swiftboaters will float in, like unwelcome turds in a punchbowl, after the boost that Obama gets from his nominating convention.
So Obama is responsible for what you and MT say here as if he had said it himself?
-
"Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, 'He's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name.' You know, 'He doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."
So...what is incorrect about this? I'd say this is probably a true statement.
Don't get me wrong, the Democrats aren't above scare tactics either, but the Republicans will certainly use them and Patriotism, "Hussein" (which is an ancient Arabic name), and Obama's race will all be part of the mudslinging with dead certainty. Politics is Machiavellian to the core - why wouldn't they use these notions? And yeah, McCain won't actually say them - that's why you have teams of people and an entire political party behind you.
-
How's it feel to to boldly support injecting a racist statement, accusing the McCain camp with zip evidence, simply to claim it, then pretend it's the McCain camp pulling the race card. Pretty disengenuous if you ask me. Almost to the point of being intellectually dishonest, especially with the efforts in rationalizing such racist commentary
-
Yea, the race card has been played, DIRECTLY BY OBAMA. Can't say the same about McCain, outside of your invalid, unsubstantiated 7degrees of supporter seperation
Not true. McCrazy played the race card when he approved the ad that included Obama & the two white bimbos McCrazy considers "international celebrities". He then made a pre emptive strike and accused Obama of "using the race card" with a familiar quote first used by Obama months ago.
"Of all the famous celebrities they could have compared Obama to, why not Tom Cruise? Or Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Donald Trump, or Oprah Winfrey? Why Britney Spears and Paris Hilton? Why two white blond bimbos?
Only one reason. It's a somewhat tamer version of the white bimbo ad used so successfully against Harold Ford in Tennessee. In juxtaposing Barack Obama with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, the McCain campaign is simply trying to plant the old racist seed of black man hitting on young white woman. Not directly, but subliminally and disgracefully.
One thing for sure. This isn't the John McCain we first saw in 2000, running a campaign on the issues. And this isn't the positive McCain campaign he himself promised us for 2008. This is a campaign that, from the beginning, is nothing but negative, personal, dirty and, yes, racist."
Bill Press
-
Sex celebs: Why Britney and Paris?
We just got off a conference call with Camp McCain, defending their new ad comparing Barack Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.
They said they thought the ad was legitimate because Obama is a big celebrity (which happens to be what John McCain was, too, when he came home from Vietnam and started to build his political career), and Britney and Paris were Number 2 and 3.
The problem: Anyone with even a vague sense of pop culture knows that Britney and Paris are yesterday's news. Here's a link to Forbes' Celebrity 100. Paris and Britney don't even make the list any more.
Instead, the top 10, in order: Oprah Winfrey, Tiger Woods, Angelina Jolie, Beyonce Knowles, David Beckham, Johnny Depp, Jay-Z, The Police, JK Rowling, Brad Pitt.
So, they didn't pick other big celebrities, who were either men, or black, or married.
What they picked was two sexually available white women.
But it must have been a coincidence, because we know John McCain wants to run an elevated campaign focusing on the serious issues that America faces.
Newsday
-
No link.
-
http://www.wikio.com/discussion/676572 (http://www.wikio.com/discussion/676572)
http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/07/sex_celebs_why_britney_and_par.html (http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/07/sex_celebs_why_britney_and_par.html)
I wonder how Brittany and Spears feel about being used as a prop ?
this is very directly an "empty suit " or "no Beef" ploy , it is really reaching to consider it a stubtle racist ploy.
The Empty Suit himself didn't think of this the same day it came out , if it takes 24 hours for someone with his intelligence to crack that code , how long will it take those who are not as stubtle and intelligent? A code that the enemy can decode faster than you can was one of the problems that handicapped Imperial Japan.
-
How's it feel to to boldly support injecting a racist statement, accusing the McCain camp with zip evidence, simply to claim it, then pretend it's the McCain camp pulling the race card. Pretty disingenuous if you ask me. Almost to the point of being intellectually dishonest, especially with the efforts in rationalizing such racist commentary
I still don't see what's wrong with it.
You doubt that there will be racist comments or ads? I was here in TN when the RNC ran their infamous racist ad against Harold Ford Jr. Mind you, the GOP candidate (now Senator) Bob Corker vociferously opposed the ad, yet the GOP refused to pull it at Corker's request. Eventually they did remove it, but not until it had run long enough for effect.
We could debate all day about the candidates (truth be told, Corker was to the left of Ford and they both sucked). Yet, the ad was absolutely racist and it left little room for doubt. The RNC ran it, even after their candidate publicly asked that it be pulled.
So, you can play on the high-horse, but real life politics is played where the pigs wallow. There is no doubt that the GOP will use race where polls indicate it will benefit them.
Why?
Simple. There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. That's why there's so much venom on this forum around election time. Everyone has to post articles with titles like "A little early....didn't think Obama would stoop this low, so soon". There's no real policy difference (especially at a level on which the public bothers to care) so the alternative is to sling mud.
So how do you size up your candidates?
Barrack Hussein Obama gets linked to Islam, and every possible negative connotation that can carry. He also gets linked to African-Americans and every possible negative connotation that can carry. Put him with Sharpton, Farrakhan, militant Islam, Iran, Palestinians, then associate him with every possible stereotype imaginable. He's a bit better off than Ford because Ford was a bachelor and made the mistake of attending a Superbowl Party at Hugh Hefner's home. I'd put Obama with union leaders, who are still very maligned in much of the South and Midwest. I'd see if I can find old colleagues to try and Swift Boat him - they're worth the money. Make sure he's seen as a posh elitist and absolutely make sure you get your evangelicals out by making Obama into a very anti-Christian, pro-gay, abortionist.
John McCain is ancient, was a member of the Keating Five, is known for his quick temper, and is also routinely loathed by the right wing of his own party. Link him to scandal and make sure that everyone knows who Charles Keating was and why the S&L collapse did so much damage (McCain and Glenn were actually found innocent, but condemned for using "poor judgment" but make him defend his actions). I'd tie him so close to Charles Keating that you'd think they were married. Then I'd explain how much money McCain & Keating cost taxpayers. Next, I'd make McCain look like a friggin' old nut. Have as many people as you can to come out and say what a crazy temper the guy has and that he'll go off for no reason at a moment's notice. Would you trust him at a G8 Summit? Lastly, in more of a stealth campaign, make sure that the right wing knows that your guy is a moderate and McCain is no "true believer." He's a big government spender and no friend of evangelicals either.
-
How's it feel to to boldly support injecting a racist statement, accusing the McCain camp with zip evidence, simply to claim it, then pretend it's the McCain camp pulling the race card. Pretty disingenuous if you ask me. Almost to the point of being intellectually dishonest, especially with the efforts in rationalizing such racist commentary
I still don't see what's wrong with it.
Shouldn't he have waited for it to happen , so that it would be more truthy?
Jumping the gun like this reveils how much BHO is depending on his race , to win the race, if he were light complected there would be no reason to prefer him to Kuchinich or Edwards.
If the McCain Campaign behaves itself too much , Obama should drag race in becausee he needs the victomhood , even if he has to make it himself.
-
I'm still at a loss for why y'all think this is such a big deal.
So Obama uses his race? He shouldn't? You seem to think that this is some 18th century gentlemanly dispute. I'd have thought that the godless, no holds barred, election of 2004 would have cured y'all of this fairytale.
-
How's it feel to to boldly support injecting a racist statement, accusing the McCain camp with zip evidence, simply to claim it, then pretend it's the McCain camp pulling the race card. Pretty disingenuous if you ask me. Almost to the point of being intellectually dishonest, especially with the efforts in rationalizing such racist commentary
I still don't see what's wrong with it.
Why of course not. ::) More rolling in the grave by the great MLK. In case you missed the point, it's the utter transparent "no problemmo" of racist commentary that would get a Republican lynched by not just the MSM, but likely by his own party, that Obama gets a complete pass for. You think McCain would get away with anything remotely resembling, "Obama's gonna make you scared of me because I'm white" Or anything even resembling a racist statement??
-
I'm still at a loss for why y'all think this is such a big deal.
So Obama uses his race? He shouldn't? You seem to think that this is some 18th century gentlemanly dispute. I'd have thought that the godless, no holds barred, election of 2004 would have cured y'all of this fairytale.
Who said that John Kerrys style was admirable?
-
The swiftboaters will float in, like unwelcome turds in a punchbowl, after the boost that Obama gets from his nominating convention.
So Obama is responsible for what you and MT say here as if he had said it himself?
===================================================
Compraring me to a swiftboater, really.
No way I am going to actually pay bazillions, or even tens, of dollars to say naughty things about McCain.
But if the swiftboaters appear, they will appear with the consent of McCain, or if he refuses, the support of the Republican National Committee, probably covertly, so no one can prove it until December or so.
I will blame McCain for all the racist crap and swiftboat crap that comes up, do not beileve that I won't. But I will probably just piss and moan about it on the free channels of information open to me.
-
The swiftboaters will float in, like unwelcome turds in a punchbowl, after the boost that Obama gets from his nominating convention.
So Obama is responsible for what you and MT say here as if he had said it himself?
===================================================
Compraring me to a swiftboater, really.
No way I am going to actually pay bazillions, or even tens, of dollars to say naughty things about McCain.
But if the swiftboaters appear, they will appear with the consent of McCain, or if he refuses, the support of the Republican National Committee, probably covertly, so no one can prove it until December or so.
I will blame McCain for all the racist crap and swiftboat crap that comes up, do not beileve that I won't. But I will probably just piss and moan about it on the free channels of information open to me.
I don't think that any of the Swift Boat Veterans , except Kerry himself spent Millions.
Or found any millions either.
-
<<this is very directly an "empty suit " or "no Beef" ploy , it is really reaching to consider it a stubtle racist ploy>>
Bullshit. Nothing subtle about it. Black guy, two blonde bimbos. Subtle, my ass.
<<The Empty Suit himself didn't think of this the same day it came out >>
More bullshit. How do you know what he thought?
-
<<this is very directly an "empty suit " or "no Beef" ploy , it is really reaching to consider it a stubtle racist ploy>>
Bullshit. Nothing subtle about it. Black guy, two blonde bimbos. Subtle, my ass.
<<The Empty Suit himself didn't think of this the same day it came out >>
More bullshit. How do you know what he thought?
I know that it was twenty hours before anyone in his camp thought of it as a racial angle , then they jumped on it .
The two starlets in question are famous for being Vapid , the exact thing that the commercial was about.
Notice the commercial does not accuse BHO of bveing with them , it accuses him of being like them.
The connection with Racism is a serious stretch .
-
The connection with Racism is a serious stretch .
=========================================
The Doublemint Twins were a very serious stretch from stuff you put in your mouth and chew on. "Catch the Wave" has nothing to do with Coke, and is only sort of related to part of the logo. So what. This is not rational advertising, it is psychological headgames.
Two short blonde bimbos. One tall Black man. Both are inserted in the mind of the possibly beer-addled vidiot hick as he is trying to watch a rerun of American Idol. In his mind there are ancient taboos that say "Black man not BELONG with two blonde bimbos: two of these things not like the other, two of these thing NOT the SAME. This BAD. You vote NO. McCain GOOD, he like bimbo's grandpa, he no mess with bimbo, besides, he same color".
Just like Doublemint twins. Twins, count them one, two. Two mints in one gum. Is big miracle. You buy now.
-
You really do feel contempt for the average American, don't you?
-
<<I know that it was twenty hours before anyone in his camp thought of it as a racial angle , then they jumped on it .>>
That's ridiculous. The racism was apparent and instantly obvious. That it took them 20 hours to formulate a response to it is of zero significance. They might well have debated several lines of attack.
<<The two starlets in question are famous for being Vapid , the exact thing that the commercial was about.>>
Yeah, right. A professor of constitutional law at a renowned law school is vapid. Like the two bimbos. As if nobody but a blonde bimbo could personify vapidity. As if ANYONE would believe Obama is "vapid." Especially in comparison with a 70-year-old who finished fifth last in his class at a military school. Now pull the other one.
You really ARE naive. That commercial was pure racism and the excuses you are developing for it are pathetic. And THEN that wizened little war criminal has the fucking nerve to claim that it is OBAMA who "played the race card." This guy is giving new meaning to "chutzpah." Pisses on your head and tells you it's only rain.
-
Look, advertising of this sort gets results.
Do you actually think that the Doublemint Twins would have been the symbol for Wrigley's gum for decades if these inane ads did not sell gum? How do you spell relief? You'll wonder where the yellow went, when you brush your teeth with P-------t. Brusha brusha brusha, new I----a Toothpaste, says Bucky Beaver. All these ads are designed to put a word or an emotion into your mind. So is rolling a pair of slight white blonde bimbos around a tall Black Obama into a joint and letting you decide if they belong together. Two women one man. Polygamy. Muslim. Miscegenation! Bad! Wrong!
People are not rational when they watch ads, and many people have the reasoning part of their minds turned off when watching TV, anyway. It is not without reason that TV has been called "chewing gum for the mind." People enjoy watching other people bicker and fight and eat worms and win huge amounts of money by answering very easy multiple choice questions.
An uncle of mine never missed Wheel of Fortune. He watched twice a day, all in reruns. Of course he knew all the answers. And he was not by any means an unsuccessful person. He made it through HS, and worked in the aircraft industry as an assembler, at Sears in various jobs, and made a killing selling lots in Tarzana California. He was a millionaire. He hated Jimmy Carter because Jimmy had canceled a naval base in the desert where he had planned to build rental apartments for sailors and their wives. You could not ask him why he thought the Navy needed a base in the Mojave Desert without upsetting him in the extreme, because he ended up renting those apartments to Mexicans who overtaxed the plumbing and caused him much grief and woe. He eventually sold the apts. for a small profit (next to nothing, he said). He felt Jimmy Carter had betrayed him by not sending several thousand sailors out to the Mojave Desert for him to rent apartments to.
He wanted to shoot sea lions, and didn't see why clear cutting national forests was a bad idea. And most of his friends were more daft than he was. A good, solid Reagan Republican.
This ad by McCain was designed by marketing experts, and I imagine that it is especially effective for the undecided non-thinking, inarticulate sort of individual that will decide this election. There are a lot of stupid people in this country, Selling stupid people crap that they don't need, like selling a $60,000 Hummer to some yokel to drive to the supermarket in because her feels safer, for example is not only possible, it is at the core of the economy.
McCain (and Obama as well) will be peddled this way, because it it what gets results. It is not my fault that many of my fellow Americans are stupid, unreasoning oafs. I have dedicated my life to teaching them. But oafs they are, and they will decide who runs this unfortunate country. I am merely the messenger, revealing the battle plan.
-
I don't think that any of the Swift Boat Veterans , except Kerry himself spent Millions.
Or found any millions either.
You're kidding, right?
According to information released by the IRS on February 22, 2005, more than half of the group's reported contributions came from just three sources, all prominent Texas Republican donors: Houston builder Bob J. Perry, a longtime supporter of George W. Bush, donated $4.45 million, Harold Simmons' Contrans donated $3 million, and T. Boone Pickens, Jr. donated $2 million. Other major contributors included Bush fundraiser Carl Lindner ($300,000), Robert Lindner ($260,000), GOP contributor Aubrey McClendon ($250,000), George Matthews Jr. ($250,000), and Crow Holdings ($100,000).
-
You're kidding, right?
According to information released by the IRS on February 22, 2005, more than half of the group's reported contributions came from just three sources, all prominent Texas Republican donors: Houston builder Bob J. Perry, a longtime supporter of George W. Bush, donated $4.45 million, Harold Simmons' Contrans donated $3 million, and T. Boone Pickens, Jr. donated $2 million. Other major contributors included Bush fundraiser Carl Lindner ($300,000), Robert Lindner ($260,000), GOP contributor Aubrey McClendon ($250,000), George Matthews Jr. ($250,000), and Crow Holdings ($100,000).
Which one of the ones that donated over a million were swift boat veterans?
-
Are you ashamed of Hussein? It is his real middle name and it isn't strange for prominent people to be called by all three .
No. That's not an honest argument, Plane, and I'm going to call everyone on the right on this one.
Yes it is true that SOME people are referred to with three names. But FEW are. Most of us go by two, and Barrack obviously chooses to be one. If Barrack Obama WANTS to be called by his middle name that is different. But we are not referring to John McCain by his middle name. We call GWB "Dubya" simply to differentiate him from his father, just as John Quincy Adams was probably called to differentiate him from his pop.
The appelage "Barrack Hussein Obama" is there to insinuate a Muslim connection and to connote a relationship with Saddam and his ilk. It is cynical word games at best and fear-mongering at worst. There is absolutely no reason to use the middle name and doing so instantly makes me ignore the user.
There is no way the right side gets this one right. "Hussein" is only his middle name by coincidence. My middle name is Craig. NOBODY knows that except my family (and now you guys). It is irrelevant. So is "Hussein."
-
Is it possible that people who call the dem candidate Barrack Obama sublimely pointing out his lack of military experience?
Are they insinuating he is more suited to Quonset huts than officers quarters?
-
Is it possible that people who call the dem candidate Barrack Obama sublimely pointing out his lack of military experience?
Are they insinuating he is more suited to Quonset huts than officers quarters?
It's the military way to say he's "in da house."
D'oh.
-
I don't think that any of the Swift Boat Veterans , except Kerry himself spent Millions.
Or found any millions either.
You're kidding, right?
According to information released by the IRS on February 22, 2005, more than half of the group's reported contributions came from just three sources, all prominent Texas Republican donors: Houston builder Bob J. Perry, a longtime supporter of George W. Bush, donated $4.45 million, Harold Simmons' Contrans donated $3 million, and T. Boone Pickens, Jr. donated $2 million. Other major contributors included Bush fundraiser Carl Lindner ($300,000), Robert Lindner ($260,000), GOP contributor Aubrey McClendon ($250,000), George Matthews Jr. ($250,000), and Crow Holdings ($100,000).
John Kerry is a Swift Boat veteran and spent millions , no one on your list here is a Swift Boat Veteran.
-
There is no way the right side gets this one right. "Hussein" is only his middle name by coincidence. My middle name is Craig. NOBODY knows that except my family (and now you guys). It is irrelevant. So is "Hussein."
It is irrelevant also insignifigant in the deepest meaning of the word insignifigant.
But it does pull their chain , they are still worried that they will loose the racist vote.
-
<<But it does pull their chain , they are still worried that they will loose the racist vote.>>
No, they are obviously never going to get the racist vote and they know that at least as well as you know that. They are worried about the loss of lukewarm fence-sitters, who due to the sheer awfulness of McSame as a candidate, are seriously considering Obama, but can hopefully be dissuaded by racist appeals, to their resentment against the black "defilers" of "Southern womanhood."
-
John Kerry is a Swift Boat veteran and spent millions , no one on your list here is a Swift Boat Veteran.
True. They were only members of the club weren't they.
I understand that not one of the swift boat veterans who claimed Kerry received his decorations dishonorably actually served on the the boat with him when he was cited for heroism or was wounded.
That's something the pimps who financed them have in common with the swift boaters.
-
I understand that not one of the swift boat veterans who claimed Kerry received his decorations dishonorably actually served on the the boat with him when he was cited for heroism or was wounded.
This would be an incorrect statement. At least 16 members of the group served with him, and one was present during one incident for which Kerry received a medal.
-
This would be an incorrect statement. At least 16 members of the group served with him, and one was present during one incident for which Kerry received a medal.
You sure? 16?
I thought they only had a crew of 6?
Of those who served in Kerry's boat crew, only Stephen Gardner joined SBVT. He was not present on any of the occasions when Kerry won his medals, including his Purple Hearts. Gardner appeared in two of the group's television advertisements.
All other living members of Kerry's crew supported his presidential bid, and some frequently campaigned with him as his self-described 'band of brothers'. Kerry crewmembers have disputed some of SBVT's various allegations: "totally false" (Drew Whitlow), "garbage" (Gene Thorson), and "a pack of lies" (Del Sandusky).
No members of SBVT were aboard Kerry's boat during any of the incidents for which he was decorated. The only member of SBVT who was present at the Silver Star incident, Rood's crewmember Larry Clayton Lee, praised Kerry's tactics and stated that he earned his Silver Star; he stated that based on discussions with other SBVT members, he came to question whether Kerry deserved other medals for incidents at which he was not present
-
No, they are obviously never going to get the racist vote and they know that at least as well as you know that. They are worried about the loss of lukewarm fence-sitters, who due to the sheer awfulness of McSame as a candidate, are seriously considering Obama, but can hopefully be dissuaded by racist appeals, to their resentment against the black "defilers" of "Southern womanhood."
So, if it is a Southern thing why did Obama win the majority of the primaries in the Deep South?
Your vitriol is only exceeded by your ignorance of the South.
-
So, if it is a Southern thing why did Obama win the majority of the primaries in the Deep South?
Your vitriol is only exceeded by your ignorance of the South.
========================================================
Answer the following questions:
1. Most anti-Black racists in the South belong to the _________ Party. Republican/Democrat/Vegetarian.
2, A majority of Black people in the South are _________. Republicans/Democrats/Whigs.
3. In the Democratic Party Primary in Southern states, a sizable number of voters are _______________. Black/Tibetan/ Zoroastrians.
4. In 2008, Obama got a disproportional number of votes from ____________people. Tasmanian/Black/Ruthenian.
-
You sure? 16?
I thought they only had a crew of 6?
You really think the same 6 guys served the entire tour together?
-
1. Most Black racists in the South belong to the _Democrat__ Party. .
2, Most anti-Black racists in the South belong to the _Democrat_ Party.
3.A majority of Black people in the South are _Democrats__.
4. In the Democratic Party Primary in Southern states, a sizable number of voters are __White_. Black/comes in second.
5. In 2008, Obama got a hugely disproportional number of votes from __Black_people ,a clear proof of racist attitude.
-
Lot of WHite folks voted ofr Obama in Georgia
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#GADEM (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#GADEM)
-
Lot of WHite folks voted ofr Obama in Georgia
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#GADEM (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#GADEM)
That is true, but does this reality prove anything?
-
That is true, but does this reality prove anything?
Kinda contradicts Mikey's Southerners as Racist BS.
-
You really think the same 6 guys served the entire tour together?
Yeah, I think the same 6 guys probably served on the same boat for the tour, it only lasted 4 months.
I served with the same 3 guys on a bomb load crew in Vietnam for a year. There were around 300 guys in my squadron, I only actually knew maybe 20 of them.
I wonder how many of them would be telling stories about me if I ran for President?
-
You really think the same 6 guys served the entire tour together?
Yeah, I think the same 6 guys probably served on the same boat for the tour, it only lasted 4 months.
I served with the same 3 guys on a bomb load crew in Vietnam for a year. There were around 300 guys in my squadron, I only actually knew maybe 20 of them.
I wonder how many of them would be telling stories about me if I ran for President?
Were there other people serveingwith you , or bunking with you that knew you but were not in your team?
I understand that the Swift Boat crews had barraks and apartments together , seldom sleeping on the boat.
-
Yeah, I think the same 6 guys probably served on the same boat for the tour, it only lasted 4 months.
And yet, the group of Kerry's crew mates supporting him numbers 10. How does that work if there was only 6?
-
What Kerry did in Vietnam had no importance with regard to the type of president he would have been.
Juniorbush's presidency was already on a long downhill slide when the 2004 elections took place.
There was no way it ever would be better than his first term, and that was a disaster.
It is rather nice that no more buildings were bombed, but more lives have been lost due to incompetence and stupidity in the war that followed the invasion than died in 9-11. The numbers of the maimed and insane are much higher, even if we don;t count Iraqis.
-
And yet, the group of Kerry's crew mates supporting him numbers 10. How does that work if there was only 6?
Odd isn't it.
The names of some 250 "crew mates" appeared on the group's statement against Kerry.... most didn't serve at the same time or even in the same place as Kerry.
With all the discrepancies you would have thought the whole thing would have been dismissed as total bullshit right from the start.
-
It is rather nice that no more buildings were bombed, but more lives have been lost due to incompetence and stupidity in the war that followed the invasion than died in 9-11. The numbers of the maimed and insane are much higher, even if we don;t count Iraqis.
True. The losses can be heard around the world....sorta like the historic "gunshot". Yet, in this case it is not worthy of a war called for a win.
I have to agree with you, Xavier. I realize that this stream of thought is not popular. Ironically, I can't help but believe that a war was still necessary....albeit a "well oiled war". Pardon the ugly pun.
I wonder about the average, or not so average Vietnam Veteran's response to this war. Is this Iraqi wasteful fiasco another Vietnam War?
-
You really think the same 6 guys served the entire tour together?
Yeah, I think the same 6 guys probably served on the same boat for the tour, it only lasted 4 months.
I served with the same 3 guys on a bomb load crew in Vietnam for a year. There were around 300 guys in my squadron, I only actually knew maybe 20 of them.
I wonder how many of them would be telling stories about me if I ran for President?
For most of them the tour was a year long , some might have volenteered for a second year , Kerry found what Corporal Klinger and Capt. Yoserian always wanted , a loop hole that let him out early. This doesn't seem to have bothered his crewmates much , well not the actual ones on his boat.
-
You really think the same 6 guys served the entire tour together?
Yeah, I think the same 6 guys probably served on the same boat for the tour, it only lasted 4 months.
I served with the same 3 guys on a bomb load crew in Vietnam for a year. There were around 300 guys in my squadron, I only actually knew maybe 20 of them.
I wonder how many of them would be telling stories about me if I ran for President?
For most of them the tour was a year long , some might have volenteered for a second year , Kerry found what Corporal Klinger and Capt. Yoserian always wanted , a loop hole that let him out early. This doesn't seem to have bothered his crewmates much , well not the actual ones on his boat.
I wonder....is there a film that most touches on the reality that was Vietnam?
Platoon is one, but so is Born on the Fourth.
-
With all the discrepancies you would have thought the whole thing would have been dismissed as total bullshit right from the start.
So, you're saying that Kerry is lying when he props up 10 crew mates as having served with him and supporting his story?
-
I wonder....is there a film that most touches on the reality that was Vietnam?
Platoon is one, but so is Born on the Fourth.
===============================================================
The War lasted from the arrival of "advisers" in the early 1960's until 1975. There were too many Vietnam realities for a two hour movie, I think.
Apocalypse Now was a sort of psychohistory of the affair as well.
-
I wonder....is there a film that most touches on the reality that was Vietnam?
Platoon is one, but so is Born on the Fourth.
===============================================================
The War lasted from the arrival of "advisers" in the early 1960's until 1975. There were too many Vietnam realities for a two hour movie, I think.
Apocalypse Now was a sort of psychohistory of the affair as well.
Oh yes, of course...I had forgotten to mention A.N.
Insanity as theme indeed.
-
So, you're saying that Kerry is lying when he props up 10 crew mates as having served with him and supporting his story?
I never heard a good reason from the swiftboaters to doubt the official military records regarding Kerrys heroism.
The SBVFT accomplished their mission. That's all that mattered.
-
Kerry found what Corporal Klinger and Capt. Yoserian always wanted , a loop hole that let him out early.
You should try that line at the VA Hospital in Tampa...find a kid back from Iraq with one leg & tell him congrads on finding that loophole that gave him an early out.
I suppose next you'll tell me that 58,000 found the same loophole during Vietnam only they took it a step too far.
-
Kerry served two tours in Vietnam and was wounded at least once.
Juniorbush served not a day in any dangerous place, and bailed out before his time was supposed to be up.
None of this is of any value anymore, by the way. Kerry and Juniorbush are not running.
-
I never heard a good reason from the swiftboaters to doubt the official military records regarding Kerrys heroism.
Also, did Kerry take his entire crew with him when his first crew was disbanded and he took command of another swift boat?
I'm not so sure you know the details of Kerry's military service.
-
I'm not so sure you know the details of Kerry's military service.
Jeez, this was of supreme unimportance in 2004 and is of 0% importance now. Who gives a f*ck? Kerry's not running.
-
So, you're saying that Kerry is lying when he props up 10 crew mates as having served with him and supporting his story?
I never heard a good reason from the swiftboaters to doubt the official military records regarding Kerrys heroism.
I heard one , Kerry himself wrote that stuff.
-
Kerry found what Corporal Klinger and Capt. Yoserian always wanted , a loop hole that let him out early.
You should try that line at the VA Hospital in Tampa...find a kid back from Iraq with one leg & tell him congrads on finding that loophole that gave him an early out.
I suppose next you'll tell me that 58,000 found the same loophole during Vietnam only they took it a step too far.
Kerry has one leg?
-
<<So, if it is a Southern thing why did Obama win the majority of the primaries in the Deep South?>>
By getting 90% of the black vote. By adding that to the youth vote, and whatever other niche voter blocs he has.
<<Your vitriol is only exceeded by your ignorance of the South.>>
My "ignorance" of the south consisting of calling those racist bastards what they are, despite every bullshit pretence they make to prove they have "changed." A solidly Democratic and racist white electorate switches to Republicanism after the Democratic Party abandons its long-standing commitment to Jim Crow, but that's just coincidence. Similar "coincidences" follow as life-long Democrats switch parties in the wake of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. Oh no, pardon my vitriol, no racism here folks, just move right along.
-
Did you even look at the numbers . Hillary only carried the over 45 white crowd.
When is the last time you were even in the South?
Jim Crow died with Brown vs Board of Education. Took a Republican appointed Supreme Court to do it.
Took a republican president to enforce it.
-
<<So, if it is a Southern thing why did Obama win the majority of the primaries in the Deep South?>>
By getting 90% of the black vote. By adding that to the youth vote, and whatever other niche voter blocs he has.
<<Your vitriol is only exceeded by your ignorance of the South.>>
My "ignorance" of the south consisting of calling those racist bastards what they are, despite every bullshit pretence they make to prove they have "changed." A solidly Democratic and racist white electorate switches to Republicanism after the Democratic Party abandons its long-standing commitment to Jim Crow, but that's just coincidence. Similar "coincidences" follow as life-long Democrats switch parties in the wake of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. Oh no, pardon my vitriol, no racism here folks, just move right along.
Is your attitude diffrent from prejudice in some way?
-
<<Did you even look at the numbers . Hillary only carried the over 45 white crowd.>>
Such data are meaningless without knowing what percentage of the "over-45-whites" were of total white voters. Nit-picking like that will involve us in endless minutiae which in the end will prove nothing. The big picture tells the story - - what used to be the Solid South until the Democratic Party conclusively turned its back on racism, went Republican in a big way afterwards. Sheer coincidence? Bullshit. Southern Strategy more likely.
<<When is the last time you were even in the South?>>
February 2008. If you want to count Miami Beach as the South. What does that have to do with anything? It's like asking someone who gave an opinion on Iraq when was the last time he had been to Iraq. It's like asking someone with an opinion on Nazi Germany when he was last in Nazi Germany. Sometimes those who WERE there will come up with the most distorted views of all: Racist? Us? Hell no, not us!! I don't give added points for being part of the problem - - there is such a thing as being too close to the situation.
<<Jim Crow died with Brown vs Board of Education. >>
The hell it did!! It died with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act.
<<Took a Republican appointed Supreme Court to do it.>>
Really? They were all Republican appointees? Brown was a unanimous decision of the court, there was no liberal/conservative split on it. Besides, how many "Republican-appointed Supreme Courts" upheld Jim Crow, claimed the Negro was only 3/5 of a human being, said that Dred Scott's owner had a right to reclaim his property?
<<Took a republican president to enforce it. >>
A pretty reluctant Republican president, if you're referring to Little Rock. It took a Democratic AG to enforce the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts, and THAT enforcement was followed by the racists deserting the Democratic Party in droves in the South and flocking to the Republican banner for the first time since Reconstruction.
-
"...went Republican in a big way afterwards."
Not a fact is it?
How many Republican Govenors , Senators or Congressmen were Southern Republicans in the six years following the Voteing rights act?
Go for twelve years , still almost a solid south for the Dems?
Yep.
Piffle always finds a buyer , you have bought this piffle.
Besides, how many "Republican-appointed Supreme Courts" upheld Jim Crow, claimed the Negro was only 3/5 of a human being, said that Dred Scott's owner had a right to reclaim his property?
None , never even one. Justice Tanney and all of the court that found against Dread Scott were Democratic administration appointees.
-
None , never even one. Justice Tanney and all of the court that found against Dread Scott were Democratic administration appointees.
===========================
Before 1856, the Republican Party did not even exist. Before 1860, it was not taken seriously.
The Whigs and the Democrats were both split over the slavery issue. The Whigs were the party of the business elite. The Southern elite was the plantation elite, and they were not usually Whigs. In 1860, the Whigs split into the Constitutional Union Party and the Republicans. The Democrats split into a Norther and a Southern faction, and each fielded a candidate. After the Civil War, nearly all the Whigs were Republicans in the North and a nervous combination of former slaves and carpetbaggers in the South. After 1876, the Democrats agreed to accept the minority candidate Hayes over the winner Tilden for an end to the occupation troops and a withdrawal of the Freedman's Bureau. Jim Crow Laws were passed after that date.
The supporters of Jim Crow transferred from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party between 1963 and 1980. Georgia voted for Goldwater, a converted Jew and an outspoken fellow who was not really into Civil Rights in 1964. It took a while for the GOP to accept the segregationists into their ranks, because they had opposed them for reasons other than bigotry for so long. The number of Southern Black voters was negligible until at least 1968. The Republicans ended up with nearly all of George Wallace's segregationist supporters.
It is futile to claim that creeps like Jesse Helms were against Jim Crow Laws, so stop trying please.
a
-
<<Piffle always finds a buyer , you have bought this piffle. >>
Well, here's some more piffle for you, then - -
Mississippi Senators
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Senators_from_Mississippi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Senators_from_Mississippi)
James O. Eastland was the 10th in an unbroken line of Democratic Senators stretching back to 1877; he served for a term in 1941 and then from 1943 to 1978; one of the South’s political traditions is to re-elect the incumbent, especially a good ol’ boy who knows how to keep you-know-who in their place. The voters knew Eastland as a racist and a fascist and they weren’t going to punish HIM because the party had been turned around by a bunch a God-damn Jews and n-----s but when Eastland retired, guess who succeeded him? Thad Cochran, a Republican. A Republican who held the seat from 1978 to now. What kind of Republican? Just ask Wikipedia:
Cochran grew up as a Democrat but became a Republican sometime in the mid-to-late 1960s. He served as head of Richard Nixon's Mississippi campaign in 1968. Gee: a lifetime as a Democrat until “sometime in the mid-to-late sixties.” Hmmm, now WHAT could have caused such a dramatic change in the guy’s political career? The Civil Rights Act? The Voting Rights Act? RACISM? Naaaaah! Chalk it all up to coincidence.
Mississippi’s other Senator at the time of the passage of the VRA and CRA was John C. Stennis, who had the seat since 1947 and held it till 1989. (They like their racists old and seasoned in Mississippi.) Again the white racist voters of Mississippi knew a good racist when they saw one, and they weren’t about to turf him out just because of the actions of a bunch of Jews and n-----s from the East Coast. Stennis was the sixth in an unbroken line of Democratic Senators that started in 1881, but when he retired, guess who succeeded to HIS seat? Omigod, ANOTHER Republican! the infamous Trent Lott. Is that a coincidence or what?
Not a racist, of course not, but by ANOTHER Amazing Coincidence, Lott had also been a lifelong Democrat until sometime between the passage of the VRA and the CRA and 1972, when Wikipedia says he ran as a Republican. Lott, BTW, in a little-known achievement of his own, led a successful battle to keep blacks out of ANY chapter of his college frat, not that he’s a racist, for sure not, he probably just didn’t feel their skin colour would match the wallpaper in any of the frat-houses across the country. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399310,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399310,00.html)
I don't have the time or the necessity to go through each of the states as I did with Mississippi, but I skimmed through them, and in each case, the pattern is more or less identical: a virtually unbroken stream of DEMOCRATIC U.S. Senators, with maybe one or two exceptions only, from the 1870s until just a few years after the passage of the CRA/VRA, and then Republicans, either solid or mixed (alternating) with Democrats showing the first Republican successes in the U.S. Senate in 90 years or more - - all AFTER the CRA and VRA. And more often than not the "Republicans" who stepped into formerly Democratic offices were themselves former Democrats.
Anyone who claims that the so-called Southern Strategy was anything OTHER than a successful harvesting by the Republican Party of white southern racists abandoning the Democrats over civil rights for blacks is just plain fulla shit.
-
The Myth of ?the Southern Strategy?
By CLAY RISEN
Published: December 10, 2006
Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members ? and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a ?Southern strategy? that championed ?states? rights.?
It?s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book ?The End of Southern Exceptionalism,? Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however ? and here?s the surprise ? even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)
The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn?t.
To be sure, Shafer says, many whites in the South aggressively opposed liberal Democrats on race issues. ?But when folks went to the polling booths,? he says, ?they didn?t shoot off their own toes. They voted by their economic preferences, not racial preferences.? Shafer says these results should give liberals hope. ?If Southern politics is about class and not race,? he says, ?then they can get it back.?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html)
-
The Myth of ?the Southern Strategy?
If Southern politics is about class and not race,? he says, ?then they can get it back.?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html)
Do they want it back ?
Would they rather not preserve their cherished myths ?
-
Do they want it back ?
Would they rather not preserve their cherished myths ?
They will have to search their souls and determine whether truth is more important than power.
-
So all those mobs that we saw in the 1950s and 1960s who tried to prevent school desegregation weren't really racists, they were just kidding. Just all out for some fresh air at the same time, and the liberal media made them out to be racists. Or maybe by the end of the Sixties, they just vanished into thin air, maybe in an unknown Rapture. Leaving behind, unfortunately, the lamentable myth of a white racist south. Gee, this sure is educational. One minute you see angry mobs, firehoses, police dogs, Sheriffs and deputies clubbing the shit out of people and the next - - all gone. No racists here. Just nouveaux riches voting to protect their new-found wealth. Of course.
-
Times change. People change.
Look what happened to Russia after the fall of Communism.
Moscow is one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in.
They have high heeled shoe races, for cryin' out loud.
-
"If Obama is elected, it will be seen as a major change in not only American politics"
does that mean the welfare pimps and whiners will drop the crutch and finally look in mirror?
-
It means that you Christians ( at last count, there was one of you, despite the plural) will never manage to get a smaller government. Of course, if McCain wins, this won't happen either.
-
<<People change.>>
Not THAT fast, they don't. Are you trying to tell me that Trent Lott and Thad Cochran and all the rest of their loathesome ilk were dirt-poor hillbillies who were lifelong Democrats but as the affluence of the "New South" fell upon them like a shower of golden rain they suddenly realized which party would better protect their new-found wealth? Please. Give me a break. Try to keep your ridiculous fairy tales within some remote semblance of reality.
<<Look what happened to Russia after the fall of Communism.
<<Moscow is one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in.
<<They have high heeled shoe races, for cryin' out loud. >>
There is nothing at all surprising there - - what do you think one of the functions of communism was? It was to keep a lid on these parasites and leeches and force them into some kind of productive labour for the common good of the socialist Motherland. With Communism gone, there is no braking force on these antisocial elements and just as in the U.S.A. they will drain the lifeblood from hardworking men and women to further their own parasitic existence.
-
There is nothing at all surprising there - - what do you think one of the functions of communism was? It was to keep a lid on these parasites and leeches and force them into some kind of productive labour for the common good of the socialist Motherland. With Communism gone, there is no braking force on these antisocial elements and just as in the U.S.A. they will drain the lifeblood from hardworking men and women to further their own parasitic existence.
LOL
And here i thought the function of communism was to replace one elite with another.
-
No one wants to work in Russia anymore.
It used to be that the work went to the proles ands the farmers, and the benefits went to the party bosses
Now the benefits go to the exploiters.
I fail to see what high heeled shoe races have to do with anything.
-
<<And here i thought the function of communism was to replace one elite with another.>>
Yeah, that's what George Orwell thought, too. Can't say there isn't some truth to it, in the result, but it sure as hell wasn't what the original Revolutionaries intended. The elite was to guide the masses into real communism, when the elites would disappear and the state was supposed to wither away. The whole idea got fucked up. Next time, they'll do it right.