|
Post by blondie on Apr 18, 2007 15:42:11 GMT -5
Fascinating. I had no idea he was such a 2 dimensional straw man. You have no idea about many many many things...... Zing, ow. Stop it. You're biting wit is stinging me.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 18, 2007 15:44:45 GMT -5
BTW, you ain't close to the 80% Whites that are not ready! Do you think race is still an big issue in America? Outside the extremes? I don't know many, if any, real racists.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 18, 2007 15:53:23 GMT -5
stop beatin' around the damn "bush"....
I want Condi Rice as president.....
|
|
|
Post by lawman on Apr 18, 2007 15:53:28 GMT -5
BTW, you ain't close to the 80% Whites that are not ready! Do you think race is still an big issue in America? Outside the extremes? I don't know many, if any, real racists. I absolutely KNOW race is a major issue in this Country! Now, as opposed to the past, Whites have become incensed/angered by the 'racist' Blacks, but most Whites are close-mouthed and quiet about it!
But yes, overall.....from both sides (White and Black) it has become rapidly worse!
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 23, 2007 10:55:03 GMT -5
Careful about calling Obama "articulate".
Next thing you'll be calling him "clean" and we all know that's a racist thing to call a black person these days.
Obama in 2008 might be what the Democrats as a whole were in 2006: different.
Very, very few people actually voted FOR the Democrats in the 2006 midterms; far more voted AGAINST Republicans.
Generally speaking, elections have demanded that you tell the voters what you're >FOR< in order for the voters to make an informed (yeah I know...work with me here) choice as to whom they'll support.
Democrats broke that long-stnading 'rule' in 2006 by refusing to tell anyone what they were actually FOR, preferring to tell the voters what they were AGAINST- namely, George W. Bush.
All they did is tell us that, whatever they did, they wouldn't do it like Bush had done it.
And what do you know? IT WORKED! Running on an agenda of NOTHING won!
So we all know that the Democrat Party is utterly devoid of ideas and have been since, oh, The New Deal-era. They haven't had a new thought since FDR.
That means they run on recycled ideas repackaged to fool the next generation of voters.
Which brings us to Mr. Barak Hussein Obama.
Can anyone tell me what the man's agenda is? What's he for?
The only things I've heard from him is that, whatever he would do, he'd not do it like the Bush Administration would/did.
Hmmmmm....that sounds vaguely familiar...something about 2006....
OK...so he's well spoken. Big whoop. If a Shakespearian actor stands up and, in his mellifluous tones, reads the ingrediant list on a pot pie box, it's still just the ingrediants in pot pie he's reading- nothing substantive.
It's not about HOW it's being said- or at least it shouldn't be; it's about WHAT is being said.
Obama deals in vague platitudinous rhetoric. "Sounds Great/Less Informative" to twist an old advertising jingle. Like the Shakesperian actor standing up and reading the pot pie ingrediants, Obama stands behind the pulpit...errr....sorry...podium- and gives his sermon...errr...sorry...speech- before the congregation...errr...whoops...masses- and speaks much but says little. Since the bar is so low as regarding the substance expected from a Democrat Party politician, he easily exceeds expectations and so is dubbed a wunderkind.
|
|
|
Post by lawman on Apr 23, 2007 11:11:29 GMT -5
All this commentary (as though it was objective..LOL) coming from the leading Republican 'Shill' in the State of Alabama!
Nothing you say can be taken as objective or seriously!
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 23, 2007 16:16:56 GMT -5
Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. When I make the claim of objectivity, I do so clearly. See, what I did above was to express an OPINION. By their very nature, opinions ARE NOT objective statements. As to being taken seriously- or, if you prefer, not being taken seriously- your opinion in that matter is to be taken seriously, for you are indeed the resident expert in expressing things not to be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by lawman on Apr 23, 2007 16:22:31 GMT -5
Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. When I make the claim of objectivity, I do so clearly. See, what I did above was to express an OPINION. By their very nature, opinions ARE NOT objective statements. As to being taken seriously- or, if you prefer, not being taken seriously- your opinion in that matter is to be taken seriously, for you are indeed the resident expert in expressing things not to be taken seriously. The TRUTH draws a reaction! And as usual, yours is all 'spin' from a shill! ;D SERIOUSLY!
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 23, 2007 16:30:27 GMT -5
The TRUTH draws a reaction! You aren't suggesting that lies do not draw a reaction, are you?
|
|
|
Post by killerdoc on Apr 23, 2007 18:38:14 GMT -5
???i see such disjointed tripe here. some of you, and you know who you are, need to have 5cc of air shoved in your veins. some of you say the stupidest things. i will not argue with those of you who have head up the ass disease, but suffice it to say, you are on notice. dumbass is terminal. your outlook on things places you one step above plankten. please, i am sure you didn't reach adulthood by being brain dead, so please quit being brain dead here.
by the way, Wings Of Eagles was a movie. circa 1958-62, somewhere in there. starring the duke, john wayne. not much of a movie as i recall, but the duke was in it, so careful what you say. it had nothing to do with the subject mentioned here. i think, no, i know it was a military type move. enough said. you folks sure make my day. adios. (can i still say that and be a religion virgin?
doc
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 23, 2007 18:47:55 GMT -5
Don't throw a grenade out there so people don't know who should be getting hit by the shrapnel. Pick up a gun and shoot specific people, that's what the "Duke" would do. Not enough people know you well enough to know who you are referring to.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 23, 2007 20:23:20 GMT -5
shill /ʃɪl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[shil] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation Slang.
–noun 1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc. 2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.
So which definition best fits me, law?
Do I try to "decoy others into participating"? Doesn't seem that I have to do that; others participate with or without my input.
Do I "praise something or someone for reasons of self-interest, etc."?
Maybe...but do you "shill" for God? Are you "friends" with Jesus? Are you "loyal" to Him? Or is it "shilling" only when you happen to disagree with the side being presented in a favorable light?
I await your explanation.
|
|
|
Post by solinvictus on Apr 23, 2007 20:26:18 GMT -5
I think Obama is this election cycle's Howard Dean: he's going to look strong out of the gate, attract a considerable following, then botch it all somehow and wind up a political footnote. If you listen to black talk radio, they hate Obama because he's not "kept it real" and has just now tried to connect with a black voting public.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 24, 2007 5:57:52 GMT -5
If you listen to black talk radio, they hate Obama because he's not "kept it real" and has just now tried to connect with a black voting public. Interesting ... wonder who it REALLY is that wants to keep racism "alive" I wonder how "black talk radio" hosts would fare if they truly advocated against racism?? Frank Mathews would probably have to pay to be on the air...oh...he does?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 24, 2007 8:03:08 GMT -5
I think Obama is this election cycle's Howard Dean I agree. The "liberal" media's building him up for a knock down. After this happens the right-wing pundits will work it into their conspiracy theory by saying the "MSM" has been shilling for Hillery all along.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 25, 2007 20:18:21 GMT -5
I've got no doubt at all that much, if not most (if not virtually all) of the major MSM figures support Hillary personally. The fact that not a single one of them will ask her a question tougher than "Who are you wearing tonight?" should give us a clue who they'd like to see President.
That said, I think they'd also support a Democrat- ANY Democrat (except Joe Liebermann, who is perhaps the only sane Democrat I can name)- over a Republican- ANY Republican.
Why? Because there really is absolutely no difference between the agendas of any of the major Democrat contenders. NONE.
From an ideological standpoint, Hillary is Obama is Edwards is Kucinich is Biden, etc. Different faces; monolithic viewpoints: all far, far, FAR Left.
So the MSM and major Democrat Party donors (not that the two are mutually exclusive though perhaps that should be) can be coy, publicly saying that they support one over the other because they know deep down that there is really no difference between the lot of them. They are only concerened at the end of the day in getting a Democrat elected President.
Besides....anyone who knows anything about Democrat Party politics knows that George Soros is pulling the strings.
|
|
|
Post by solinvictus on Apr 25, 2007 20:29:49 GMT -5
I just fundamentally believe the Obama craze has wound down and I can't see him picking up momentum again. Experience has proven time and again that the worst thing you can do with the sheeple of any political stripe is to get them excited and enthusiastic way too soon. When is the election? About eighteen months away and by that time, Obama's going to be a never-was.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 30, 2007 21:44:38 GMT -5
If Obama does flame out, the obvious beneficiary will be Hillary.
Not just because she will have beaten an ostensibly worthy contender but because Obama will force Hillary to be decisive and maybe even answer a couple of tougher questions along the way. Hillary will emerge stronger from the contest.
Then of course her lapdogs in the MSM will puff her up even more, telling us (with some truth unfortunately) that Obama was her toughest foe and that no one on the Republican side is fit to lick her boots (which, come to think on it, are probably the least objectionable part of her to lick).
The rush to coronate King Hillary I has slowed a teensy-weensy bit, but the progress is moving inexorably forward.
|
|