But, as noted above, some of her supporters, including Bob Kerrey, have openly referred to Obama with his middle name. I am unaware of any sanction or disavowal of that by Mrs. Clinton, let alone one made as strongly as Rove and/or McCain v Cunningham (who, as whomod pointed out, promptly switched his allegiance to Hillary).
because you're trying to draw a link between him and saddam hussein. the name hussein isn't that rare, it only has negative tones because of one guy who had the name. remember the seinfeld where elaine dated a guy named joel rifkin? or how before 1987 the name homer was linked with intellect? or simpson meaning "great football player who never misses his flight" not "killed his ex and her boyfriend."
I think this editorial makes some good points about the whole 'Barack Hussein Obama' and turban picture uproars.
Quote:
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.: that is the full name of the junior Senator from Illinois - neither a contrivance nor, at face value, a slur. But John McCain couldn't apologize quickly enough after Bill Cunningham, a conservative talk radio host, warmed up a Cincinnati rally with a few loaded references to "Barack Hussein Obama." Asked afterwards if it was appropriate to use the Senator's middle name, McCain said, "No, it is not. Any comment that is disparaging of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is totally inappropriate."
The pundits were quick to applaud McCain's fatwa against the use of Hussein, and broadcasters began trying to report on the controversy without actually saying the name too much, dancing around the offending word as if they were doing a segment on The Vagina Monologues. In both cases, the word comes off as not quite illicit, but certainly a little taboo.
So who gets to say Hussein? At the Oscars, host Jon Stewart took innuendo about as far as it can go, saying that Barack Hussein Obama running today is like a 1940's candidate named Gaydolph Titler. But that reference, served up to a crowd that presumably swoons for Obama, got laughs. So maybe the H-word is more like the N-word: you can say it, but only if you are an initiate. Blacks can use the N-word; Obama supporters can use the H-word.
Obama's campaign thanked McCain's for his apology, claiming a victory for the high road. Fine. But McCain might also know that if middle names become fair game, John Sidney McCain III has his own liabilities. Recently, it has been the unmanly middle names that have caused their owners the most political trouble. In 2006, Jim Henry Webb hammered home the fact that his Virginia Senate opponent was actually George Felix Allen - a middle name that conjured up images of Felix Unger, or perhaps the real life Prince Felix of Luxemburg, either one a far cry from the tobacco-chewing good ole boy Allen styled himself as. In the last presidential election, both Bush and Kerry had middle names inherited from elite East Coast families. But Bush's middle name had much more swagger; you'll never see a TV show called Forbes, Texas Ranger.
Online, the onomastics are already in high gear. Lefty bloggers, in full Obama rapture, point out that Hussein means "beautiful". One conservative observer insinuated that Obama, as a Christian with a Muslim name, might be marked for death by even our allies in the Islamic world, if they think he converted from Islam (for the record, he was never Muslim). By that ornately twisted logic, though, one might add that it was the martyrdom of Hussein in the year 680, beheaded at Karbala in a clash with the caliphate, that gave rise to 1400 years or so of Sunni/Shi'a violence. So how on earth could Obama be a fair broker in Iraq?
The real problem is that if the right wants to start a whispering campaign about the name Hussein, Obama is only helping them. By cutting short the discussion, Obama is banishing his name to the voters' subconscious, where the dark opposites of hope - bigotry and fear - can turn the word over and over again in their minds until November.
The same day that Cunningham was dropping H-bombs on Cincinnati, Obama was at the Democratic debate in Cleveland, hastily accepting Hillary Clinton's assertion that she didn't order the leak of a picture of Obama wearing a turban in Kenya. "I think that's something we can set aside," he said.
It was a missed opportunity. He could have explained that he has nothing to hide. Explained why there's nothing wrong with him dressing in ceremonial clothes on official visits - like batik Bill in Indonesia in 1994 or headscarf Hillary in Eritrea in 1997. Maybe even explained why his middle name is Hussein - what his heritage means, and what it doesn't mean. In short, to reintroduce himself to those general election voters who are just starting to pay closer attention.
No matter what his advisers say, Obama wins nothing by shying away from his differences. After all, Obama is the candidate of change. He should take a cue from McCain's courage on Iraq. Say what you will about McCain, but he knows he's the war candidate. And though may have regretted saying it out loud, McCain clearly accepts that if voters don't buy his vision for the war, he'll lose. It's not too much risk for Obama to stake his campaign on voters' ability to rationally understand the difference between a Hawaii-born Christian and Saddam Hussein, the butcher of Baghdad. View this article on Time.com
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Obama's campaign may just have been caught in some heavy duty double speak & then lying about it.
Quote:
The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.
However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.
Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any question to the campaign headquarters.
Obama's campaign may just have been caught in some heavy duty double speak & then lying about it.
Quote:
The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.
However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.
Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any question to the campaign headquarters.
I think this editorial makes some good points about the whole 'Barack Hussein Obama' and turban picture uproars.
Quote:
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.: that is the full name of the junior Senator from Illinois - neither a contrivance nor, at face value, a slur. But John McCain couldn't apologize quickly enough after Bill Cunningham, a conservative talk radio host, warmed up a Cincinnati rally with a few loaded references to "Barack Hussein Obama." Asked afterwards if it was appropriate to use the Senator's middle name, McCain said, "No, it is not. Any comment that is disparaging of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is totally inappropriate."
The pundits were quick to applaud McCain's fatwa against the use of Hussein, and broadcasters began trying to report on the controversy without actually saying the name too much, dancing around the offending word as if they were doing a segment on The Vagina Monologues. In both cases, the word comes off as not quite illicit, but certainly a little taboo.
So who gets to say Hussein? At the Oscars, host Jon Stewart took innuendo about as far as it can go, saying that Barack Hussein Obama running today is like a 1940's candidate named Gaydolph Titler. But that reference, served up to a crowd that presumably swoons for Obama, got laughs. So maybe the H-word is more like the N-word: you can say it, but only if you are an initiate. Blacks can use the N-word; Obama supporters can use the H-word.
Obama's campaign thanked McCain's for his apology, claiming a victory for the high road. Fine. But McCain might also know that if middle names become fair game, John Sidney McCain III has his own liabilities. Recently, it has been the unmanly middle names that have caused their owners the most political trouble. In 2006, Jim Henry Webb hammered home the fact that his Virginia Senate opponent was actually George Felix Allen - a middle name that conjured up images of Felix Unger, or perhaps the real life Prince Felix of Luxemburg, either one a far cry from the tobacco-chewing good ole boy Allen styled himself as. In the last presidential election, both Bush and Kerry had middle names inherited from elite East Coast families. But Bush's middle name had much more swagger; you'll never see a TV show called Forbes, Texas Ranger.
Online, the onomastics are already in high gear. Lefty bloggers, in full Obama rapture, point out that Hussein means "beautiful". One conservative observer insinuated that Obama, as a Christian with a Muslim name, might be marked for death by even our allies in the Islamic world, if they think he converted from Islam (for the record, he was never Muslim). By that ornately twisted logic, though, one might add that it was the martyrdom of Hussein in the year 680, beheaded at Karbala in a clash with the caliphate, that gave rise to 1400 years or so of Sunni/Shi'a violence. So how on earth could Obama be a fair broker in Iraq?
The real problem is that if the right wants to start a whispering campaign about the name Hussein, Obama is only helping them. By cutting short the discussion, Obama is banishing his name to the voters' subconscious, where the dark opposites of hope - bigotry and fear - can turn the word over and over again in their minds until November.
The same day that Cunningham was dropping H-bombs on Cincinnati, Obama was at the Democratic debate in Cleveland, hastily accepting Hillary Clinton's assertion that she didn't order the leak of a picture of Obama wearing a turban in Kenya. "I think that's something we can set aside," he said.
It was a missed opportunity. He could have explained that he has nothing to hide. Explained why there's nothing wrong with him dressing in ceremonial clothes on official visits - like batik Bill in Indonesia in 1994 or headscarf Hillary in Eritrea in 1997. Maybe even explained why his middle name is Hussein - what his heritage means, and what it doesn't mean. In short, to reintroduce himself to those general election voters who are just starting to pay closer attention.
No matter what his advisers say, Obama wins nothing by shying away from his differences. After all, Obama is the candidate of change. He should take a cue from McCain's courage on Iraq. Say what you will about McCain, but he knows he's the war candidate. And though may have regretted saying it out loud, McCain clearly accepts that if voters don't buy his vision for the war, he'll lose. It's not too much risk for Obama to stake his campaign on voters' ability to rationally understand the difference between a Hawaii-born Christian and Saddam Hussein, the butcher of Baghdad. View this article on Time.com
Good article. I approve.
"Batman is only meaningful as an answer to a world which in its basics is chaotic and in the hands of the wrong people, where no justice can be found. I think it's very suitable to our perception of the world's condition today... Batman embodies the will to resist evil" -Frank Miller
"Conan, what's the meaning of life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!" -Conan the Barbarian
"Well, yeah." -Jason E. Perkins
"If I had a dime for every time Pariah was right about something I'd owe twenty cents." -Ultimate Jaburg53
"Fair enough. I defer to your expertise." -Prometheus
Obama's campaign thanked McCain's for his apology, claiming a victory for the high road. Fine. But McCain might also know that if middle names become fair game, John Sidney McCain III has his own liabilities. Recently, it has been the unmanly middle names that have caused their owners the most political trouble. In 2006, Jim Henry Webb hammered home the fact that his Virginia Senate opponent was actually George Felix Allen - a middle name that conjured up images of Felix Unger, or perhaps the real life Prince Felix of Luxemburg, either one a far cry from the tobacco-chewing good ole boy Allen styled himself as. In the last presidential election, both Bush and Kerry had middle names inherited from elite East Coast families. But Bush's middle name had much more swagger; you'll never see a TV show called Forbes, Texas Ranger.
Good article. I approve.
So shall we all wait for G-Man to change his titles to "John Sidney McCain in '08"?
So, basically, the moral of this story is that the GOP is treating Obama better than Clinton and certain other members of his own party are.
Our party is truly the party of inclusion. Thank you for pointing [this] out, whomod.
Whomod is eager to demonize Republicans for raising issues about Obama, when all the real trashing of Obama is coming from the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Whomod is eager to demonize Republicans for raising issues about Obama, when all the real trashing of Obama is coming from the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Um.. are you stupid or do you just not read my posts?
I've criticized BOTH Clinton and the right wing media for their attacks and insinuations about Obama.
Whomod is eager to demonize Republicans for raising issues about Obama, when all the real trashing of Obama is coming from the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Um.. are you stupid or do you just not read my posts?
I've criticized BOTH Clinton and the right wing media for their attacks and insinuations about Obama.
Yes, but you save your real venom for the alleged "right wing attack machine", when in truth McCain condemned the Barack Hussein Obama remarks by the guy who indroduced him, at the rally he attended.
You never miss an opportunity to scapegoat the Republicans as EEEEEEEEVVVVVVIIIIIILLLLLL!, despite that the real venom and character assassination of Obama is coming from the Hillary Clinton campaign.
What's "stupid" is how your own hate-filled remarks reveal your partisanship, and ultimately, your own evil.
No, you probably just don't give a shit when I criticize Hillary and you get your back up when it's to any right winger.
Yeah, I must have totally ad-libbed that "right-wing attack machine" remark. You didn't actually write that, right?
You're a lying cocksucker, just like always.
Just like you said you admire McCain, but when he's the nominee, you suddenly portray him as Bush II, and have nothing nice to say about him. And before you say I'm a right-wing partisan, try and remember that I didn't vote Republican in 1992, 1996, or 2000, and look at what I've said recently about McCain being questionably conservative on a number of issues.
Obama May Face Grilling on Patriotism [list]Sen. Barack Obama's refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin along with a photo of him not putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem led conservatives on Internet and in the media to question his patriotism.
Now Obama's wife, Michelle, has drawn their ire, too, for saying recently that she's really proud of her country for the first time in her adult life.
Conservative consultants say that combined, the cases could be an issue for Obama in the general election if he wins the nomination, especially as he runs against Vietnam war hero Sen. John McCain.
"The reason it hasn't been an issue so far is that we're still in the microcosm of the Democratic primary," said Republican consultant Roger Stone. "Many Americans will find the three things offensive. Barack Obama is out of the McGovern wing of the party, and he is part of the blame America first crowd."
During Friday night’s Real Time with Bill Maher, Republican Congressman Jack Kingston took to the airwaves to echo the right wing talking points of Obama being “not patriotic enough”. One of the memes that Kingston brought up was about Obama not wearing his lapel pin. Let’s take a look at people not wearing their lapel pin:
How interesting. That looks like Rep. Jack Kingston talking about Obama not wearing his lapel pin. What’s missing? Jack Kingston’s lapel pin.
So does this make Kingston unpatriotic, a hypocrite or just plain stupid.
Of course this isn’t the first time Kingston played a game of “open mouth, insert foot”. A little over a year ago, Kingston said if families couldn’t survive on the old minimum wage then they needed to work longer hours. Just a month before that he was crying that working a 5 day work week in Congress would “take away from families“. I guess his family is more important than yours or mine.
I myself didn’t know lapel pins were so important to national security. Glenn Greenwald explains how easy it was for Obama to handle this nonsense:
Quote:
Far more notable is Barack Obama’s response to these depressingly familiar attacks. In response, he’s not scurrying around slapping flags all over himself or belting out the National Anthem, nor is he apologizing for not wearing lapels, nor is he defensively trying to prove that — just like his Republican accusers — he, too, is a patriot, honestly. He’s not on the defensive at all. Instead, he’s swatting away these slurs with the dismissive contempt they deserve, and then eagerly and aggressively engaging the debate on offense because he’s confident, rather than insecure, about his position
“A party that presided over a war in which our troops did not get the body armor they needed, or were sending troops over who were untrained because of poor planning, or are not fulfilling the veterans’ benefits that these troops need when they come home, or are undermining our Constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary?
“That is a debate I am very happy to have. We’ll see what the American people think is the true definition of patriotism.”
Never mind the fact that John McCain often doesn't wear a flag lapel pin either. But that's the far right for you, always up in arms over proper reverence towards symbols rather than substantive things like Constitutional and international law.
Originally Posted By: whomod, 2-27-08, 4:13PM
...speaking of which... It seems the gOP is worried about being labeled bigots and did polling to gauge how slimy is TOO slimy. Even for them.
It never struck me as especially complicated. Once there was a clear Democratic presidential nominee, the Republican National Committee would label him or her weak on terror, liberal (on everything), and desperate to raise your taxes. Throw in some references to 9/11, a few pictures of menacing-looking Middle Easterners, and a dash of immigrant bashing, and voila!
But it appears the RNC is hesitating, not because they’re unsure how to attack, but rather, because they want to prefer to avoid being labeled bigots.
Quote:
Top Republican strategists are working on plans to protect the GOP from charges of racism or sexism in the general election, as they prepare for a presidential campaign against the first ever African-American or female Democratic nominee.
The Republican National Committee has commissioned polling and focus groups to determine the boundaries of attacking a minority or female candidate, according to people involved. The secretive effort underscores the enormous risk senior GOP operatives see for a party often criticized for its insensitivity to minorities in campaigns dating back to the 1960s.
Look, RNC officials know the difference between a clean attack and a dirty one. They recognize when an attack is driven by race-based politics, and when one is substantive and above-board. The only reason they would need a focus group to help them out on this is if they planned to walk right up to the decency line, and wanted to know how far they could go without crossing it.
And that's part of the beauty of Obama. Not only is he inspiring the nation but the GOP are unsure how to slime him. They know perfectly well how to slime the Clinton's. Hell, they've been doing it for years! It seems for now all they have to play with is peoples fear and ignorance about Obama's religion and yeah, it's payed divedends for them with their ignorant misinformed base, weaned on a diet of FOX News and Limbaugh.
Again, you habitually slander the Republicans' intentions, when they haven't even launched any attacks on Obama as you describe them, while simultaneously ignoring that precisely the kind of attacks you describe *ARE ALREADY BEING LAUNCHED* by the Hillary Clinton campaign (i.e., the Clinton Attack Machine).
Slander, deceit, and divisive fear tactics are the traditional hallmark of Democrats, and I haven't seen that Obama has put himself above those tactics, either against Hillary, or in his attacks the last few days on McCain. The Hillary Clinton campaign publicized the islamic-dressed Osama photo. Bill Clinton said that blacks are voting their skin color for Obama, rather than on the merits of qualification for president. Even the liberal media has criticized the Clintons for race-baiting. Hillary Clinton pulled Rezko's 17-year relationship and ties to Obama out, and his representing a "slumlord". And on and on. Not the Republicans.
On MSNBC’s Live With Dan Abrams last night, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) said it was okay to “question” Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) patriotism because he doesn’t regularly wear an American flag lapel pin. Kingston claimed that “everybody” in politics “wears them.” Asked by Abrams if he was wearing one, Kingston had to admit he wasn’t, saying, “I will wear one and I have worn one.” Kingston then feigned ignorance about the irony between his criticism of Obama and his own lack of a lapel pin. Watch it above:
You'd think after he was embarrassed about his hypocrisy on Bill Maher's show regarding the "patriotic" flag pin, he'd remember to wear one since a lapel pin is the true test of patriotism in his book. What a moron. He deserves to have his ass handed to him by Abrahams.
Also in the clip, Drudge was mentioned and the infamous Cunningham remarks were again aired. But oh no, in your fucked up worldview, those aern't attacks therefore no Republican ever attacks anyone.
BTW Wonder Boy. How do you feel about a black President?
Will you guys secede from the Union again? can you guys take this numbnut lapel pin obsessed fool with you? And tell him also that placing your hand over your heart is a requirement of the Pledge of Allegiance and not the fucking National Anthem.
Farrakhan, who has drawn attention for calling Judaism a “gutter religion,” dubbed the Illinois senator the “hope of the entire world” on Sunday.
Obama was asked during a debate with Hillary Clinton Tuesday night if he would reject that support — but the Illinois senator at first hedged.
“I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy,” Obama said. “You know, I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements.”
Clinton then chimed in to say she rejected support from an anti-Israel group during her 2000 Senate run, and that Obama’s denunciation of Farrakhan is not as strong as a rejection.
Obama relented: “I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There’s no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word ‘reject’ Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word ‘denounce,’ then I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.”
He earned the crowd’s applause, but his handling of the question could spell trouble.
An article in the latest edition of Newsweek reported that Clinton’s surrogates are already floating the word that Obama has a shaky commitment to Israel
Funny.
Because amost all the media outlets are laying praise on Obama and saying that he defused a potentially embarrassing situation cooly and expertly.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Even if that is the case, it doesn't contradict what the article said, namely that he "caught heat" for it. It simply means that he allegedly defused it.
The larger question is why Farrakhan is the litmus test for black politicians’ views on race and not the politicians’ own record of comments, actions and legislative votes? Why is it that only after they repudiate Farrakhan are they then deemed not to be closet black militants? Farrakhan does not have the political influence over black people that some white Americans apparently believe. Nor does Rev. Al Sharpton, or Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr., or any of the other prominent black people that the media treat as proxies for all black people. I've repeatedly said this, especially about Jackson and Sharpton. These are just 2 race baiting assholes that the media always trots out as the representatives of black America as if anyone besides the media actually made them that.
Reporters did not run out in droves to ask white politicians to reject Don Imus after he made his remarks about the black female basketball players at Rutgers University. White politicians did not eagerly line up to do so. Nor did they repudiate fellow white politicians who did not. A few, and only a few, said they would no longer go on the Imus show. Tim Russert himself, who appeared often on the Imus show, was not among those who said they would no longer be a guest.
Most black people saw Imus as an irresponsible white man with a powerful microphone, not as the living embodiment of white America. Most black people (and white) know the difference.
I’d suggest a shout out to Tim Russert to ask repeatedly if McCain will disavow his endorsement by John Hagee, as he did to Obama with Farrakhan’s, but since McCain has been courting Hagee for a year, that might be too pointed a question to ask.
Some African-American superdelegates who support Hillary Clinton are reporting threats and intimidation from people wanting them to switch to Barack Obama. Pressure on black superdelegates has intensified since civil rights icon John Lewis switched his allegiance from Clinton to Obama earlier this week. Missouri Congressman Emanuel Cleaver II tells The Politico some superdelegates are receiving what he called nasty letters and phone calls, along with threats that they'll now be opposed by other Democrats in reelection bids. Cleaver says some even report being called an "Uncle Tom." Adding — "This is the politics of the 1950's. A lot of members are experiencing a lot of ugly stuff. They're not going to talk about it, but it's happening." California Congresswoman Diane Watson reports she also has received threatening mail — but says she would rather lose her seat than violate her principles. She says she cannot switch her vote simply because Obama is black.
FOX This would be a good time for Obama to maybe step in & say something but since this is helping him I doubt we'll see it.
Furious Kenyan tribal elders said yesterday that they may slap Hillary Rodham Clinton with a fine for her campaign's alleged role in publicizing photos of Barack Obama wearing a turban - and it must be paid in cows, goats or camels.
The elders, steaming over the Obama photo smear on the other side of the world, announced plans to convene a traditional tribal court to deal with the matter. The court could require Clinton to pay a fine in livestock, which is of great value in the far-flung Wazir region of Kenya.
Interesting. Apparently, you need to pay to "smear" Obama with the truth.
Therefore, I will be forwarding a delivery of Omaha steaks to Kenya and, as a result, expect that I will henceforth be allowed to use his full name "Barack Hussein Obama", or his pictures in a man-burka whenever I want.
Bill Maher gives his latest New Rules, with a special condemnation for the right wingers and their whisper campaign to appeal to the bigotry of the voting public:
Quote:
A fundamental trait of today’s right wing is the willingness to lie, baldly and repeatedly and without shame. And it always catches the Democrats off guard. Just ask war criminal John Kerry or Munchausen Syndrome sufferer Al Gore. Are people like Sean Hannity really so dumb that they think Barack Obama is an African spy who’s plotting to be the Lion King? Well, in his case, yes, but…People like Karl Rove know that the more ridiculous the charge you make, the better. Because they’re not aimed at rational people. They’re aimed at that great teeming mass of Americans who wept with joy when they heard “American Gladiators” was coming back. They’re called “undecideds” or “swing voters”, but I prefer the traditional term, “morons”.
...People like Karl Rove know that the more ridiculous the charge you make, the better. Because they’re not aimed at rational people. They’re aimed at that great teeming mass of Americans who wept with joy when they heard “American Gladiators” was coming back. They’re called “undecideds” or “swing voters”, but I prefer the traditional term, “morons”.
remember, the poster who quoted this is 'with' the majority of Americans.
...People like Karl Rove know that the more ridiculous the charge you make, the better. Because they’re not aimed at rational people. They’re aimed at that great teeming mass of Americans who wept with joy when they heard “American Gladiators” was coming back. They’re called “undecideds” or “swing voters”, but I prefer the traditional term, “morons”.
remember, the poster who quoted this is 'with' the majority of Americans.
...People like Karl Rove know that the more ridiculous the charge you make, the better. Because they’re not aimed at rational people. They’re aimed at that great teeming mass of Americans who wept with joy when they heard “American Gladiators” was coming back. They’re called “undecideds” or “swing voters”, but I prefer the traditional term, “morons”.
remember, the poster who quoted this is 'with' the majority of Americans.
What happened?
Bill Maher cut a little too close there?
it just amuses me that the left is all about 'the little guy' unless 'the little guy' decides not to vote or respond the way they want them to. at which point they become ignorant, scum-of-the-earth little peons of no use whatsoever to the revolution™. granted, it's understandable that the left's attitude toward its cannon fodder is capricious at best - otherwise they wouldn't be cannon fodder - but isn't it the democrat way to keep the charade going right up until election day?
I'm not mad, just amused. amused because it's always entertaining to see those who claim to speak for 'the people' try and explain away things like the 2004 presidential election. but don't worry, little peons - I'm sure the limousine liberals will at least have some table scraps left over for you on the other side of the revolution™.
Well you're conflating those who choose to believe the rights smears, which is mainly the rights willing audience, with most people in general, who as poll after poll show, are not the same people. As it stands now, those people constitute about 1/4 of the public. And they're going to believe this sort of crap and then either willingly or unwittingly spread it to others who may not be politically attuned and trust their friend, relative co-worker, brother/sister at church etc.. as telling them something factual and true. As was the case with that church lady video I posted earlier.
Now despite the pictures, despite Limbaugh and his fellow right winger talk radio peers spreading this stuff and yes, despite Hillary Clinton, Obama continues to enjoy momentum. So I don't think MOST people are falling for this stuff. Still there is a small percentage of people who either directly or thru word of mouth, will. As was the case with John Kerry and his medals. And that small percentage may be enough sometimes to swing n election. Something those that continue to spread lies and innuendo in the media know all too well.
...People like Karl Rove know that the more ridiculous the charge you make, the better. Because they’re not aimed at rational people. They’re aimed at that great teeming mass of Americans who wept with joy when they heard “American Gladiators” was coming back. They’re called “undecideds” or “swing voters”, but I prefer the traditional term, “morons”.
remember, the poster who quoted this is 'with' the majority of Americans.
Well you're conflating those who choose to believe the rights smears, which is mainly the rights willing audience, with most people in general, who as poll after poll show, are not the same people. As it stands now, those people constitute about 1/4 of the public. And they're going to believe this sort of crap and then either willingly or unwittingly spread it to others who may not be politically attuned and trust their friend, relative co-worker, brother/sister at church etc.. as telling them something factual and true. As was the case with that church lady video I posted earlier.
Now despite the pictures, despite Limbaugh and his fellow right winger talk radio peers spreading this stuff and yes, despite Hillary Clinton, Obama continues to enjoy momentum. So I don't think MOST people are falling for this stuff. Still there is a small percentage of people who either directly or thru word of mouth, will. As was the case with John Kerry and his medals. And that small percentage may be enough sometimes to swing n election. Something those that continue to spread lies and innuendo in the media know all too well.
so the left has no problem with people who support its agenda. gotcha.
...People like Karl Rove know that the more ridiculous the charge you make, the better. Because they’re not aimed at rational people. They’re aimed at that great teeming mass of Americans who wept with joy when they heard “American Gladiators” was coming back. They’re called “undecideds” or “swing voters”, but I prefer the traditional term, “morons”.
remember, the poster who quoted this is 'with' the majority of Americans.
What happened?
Bill Maher cut a little too close there?
you make me sick, thats a KKK promo video!
I appreciate a little irony as much as the next guy...
Quote:
"The KKK Took My Baby Away" is a song written by Joey Ramone. It appears on the Ramones' 1981 album Pleasant Dreams.
Many Ramones fans claim that the song was penned by Joey after Ramones' guitarist Johnny Ramone "stole" Joey's ex-girlfriend Linda from him, although he claims that he wrote the song years before the incident. The KKK reference refers to Johnny's conservative political stance, which influenced Johnny's management of the band in a militant, slightly authoritarian way. Johnny first started to cheat on his girlfriend at the time, to see Linda. When he wanted to see one girl he would claim to visit his uncle in Philadelphia. To add insult to injury, Johnny eventually married Linda, while his relationship with Joey never recovered—even when Joey was stricken with cancer.
Even for them. 
