|
i think a lot of people do not understand how much many clinton supporters LOATHE obama...I don't think there's really all that much of it compared to the number of supporters who really invested a lot, psychologically, into the idea that here was a woman finally about to break through the glass ceiling. And, now, are tremendously frustrated... even though their candidate lost fair and square.
That's true, but they are now looking at the Democrats trying to put crack sealant into the cracks that Hillary put in the glass ceiling by their treatment of Sarah Palin. Like you said, if they supported Hillary on policy, then they will support Obama. However, if they supported her based on her ability to break the glass ceiling, then there is a strong possibility that they will support McCain because of the Palin pick.
Now, I'll give you that Clinton did have some appeal to middle-of-the-roaders that Obama hasn't had. But I seriously doubt that they really loathe Obama outside of the white sheet-wearing set.no offense, but you don't have to wear a white sheet to be put off by obama's elitist leanings (san francisco, anyone?).
Indeed, I was just thinking that. Obama's comments about people clinging to their guns and religion. Well the people that found those comments offensive can look at Palin and see someone that is religous and a gun owner. They might feel that Palin is more like them than Obama is.
Of course if Obama loses it will be described as the US still being racist.
|
no offense, but you don't have to wear a white sheet to be put off by obama's elitist leanings (san francisco, anyone?).I've gone there on vacation. It's a very cool town, with some really awesome museums and a park that beats the pants off of the one in New York City. (San Diego has a better zoo, IMO.)
I've never really understood why 'San Francisco' is used as an insult, other than the obvious homophobic stuff (spent a week or so there, didn't see a single gay person, that I know of...).
i was referring to obama's comments at a san fransisco fundraiser, not the city itself, sorry.
|
|
no offense, but you don't have to wear a white sheet to be put off by obama's elitist leanings (san francisco, anyone?).I've gone there on vacation. It's a very cool town, with some really awesome museums and a park that beats the pants off of the one in New York City. (San Diego has a better zoo, IMO.)
I've never really understood why 'San Francisco' is used as an insult, other than the obvious homophobic stuff (spent a week or so there, didn't see a single gay person, that I know of...).
Barack Obama gave a speech in San Fransico where he described middle class Americans as "bitter" and "clinging to their guns and their religion." That's what Derek was referencing, not anything to do with homosexuals.
Edit: Looks like Derek beat me to the punch.
The fact that Obama’s race is even an issue proves that America is still racist.
Funny, I have only watched one of his speeches. I hear it from the media…constantly. For all the hand wringing and fear mongering, I would vote for Osama Bin Laden if I thought he would do some good for this country.
I guess I am too much in the middle of the road when it comes to politics. Call me a hopeless flip-flopper. I think both sides have some good points.
The fact that Obama’s race is even an issue proves that America is still racist.Of course it's Obama that keeps bring it up...
no offense, but you don't have to wear a white sheet to be put off by obama's elitist leanings (san francisco, anyone?). hillary started kicking obama's @$$ in the latter half of the primaries, about the time obama started getting more exposure and hillary found her populist voice. (alas, too little, too late, but it exposed chinks in skippy the wonder candidate's armor...)
saying the only reason to loathe someone is because you're a racist is an intellectually bankrupt position, sorry.
"Put off" is a far, far cry from loathe. And I do seriously doubt all that many Clinton supporters in the primaries actually loathe Obama.
Of course it's Obama that keeps bring it up...
Yeah, he's the one who keeps bringing up Rev. Wright with the implicit assumption that Obama must have agreed to everything the man ever said in her sermons just because he belonged to the church.
He's the one who keeps the rumor mill going that he's a muslim.
He's the one who says "Obama... Osama... Obama... Osama".
He's the one who saw his wife referred to as "Obama's baby-mama" on Fox.
These are all things that people have used against him or around him that have a lot to do with him not being ethnically caucasian, for being from and a part of a community that really isn't like anybody on American currency.
Do these attacks continue? They sure do. We still get spam circulated around Obama being a muslim.
|
And to those of you libertarians out there, any thoughts that government deregulation is a good thing, the housing crisis is the proof that there is a need for it. The reason there are regulations on business is to protect us the consumer, not to screw over the producer.
As consumers, why wouldn't we favor regulation?
Let's just clean up the government, not cut out its legs from under it.
Oh, I'll take a shot at this, for the most part it sucks to have so many americans loosing their homes, but the fact is that the housing market has been artificially inflated for the past twenty years due in no small part to the government. The fact is that this crash was actually necessary for the housing market to stabilize and make home ownership possible for younger generations. I was able to buy a house due to the crash, and you know what I wouldn't say my home is worth more than the 100,000 I paid for it. But had I gone to buy my home two years ago, it would have been valued at near 200,000 and the only way I could've afforded it would have been to take one of those crappy loans that caused the market to crash (and if you do the research when a bank wants to open a branch they can actually be forced to accept a certain # of low income applicants in the community, the only way to do this is to give them one of those loans). Yes it sucks how many forclosures are going on right now. But the market has actually begun to stabilize and recover (with an emphasis put on buying pre-existing homes instead of new which is also a good thing because it helps fend off sub-division sprawl and enables people to actually have more than thirty feet of yard in any direction).
Yeah, he's the one who keeps bringing up Rev. Wright with the implicit assumption that Obama must have agreed to everything the man ever said in her sermons just because he belonged to the church.
Actually that is not really the issue that is being suggested about that typically. The issue is whether Obama makes poor choices of who to surround himself with and take advice from. It also goes to an issue of credibility. Most people don't believe that Obama didn't know that Wright had the views that became public. Given that there has been several speeches brought up within the last few years that are questionable, it is just not very statisticly likely that Obama happened to be gone for all the occasions such topics were discussed.
So it isn't that people necessarily believe Obama believes the same things as Wright (I don't know if he does or not, nor do I believe if he was racist that would necessarily disqualify him as a good president as several of our previous presidents were probably racist). It is that many people believe he isn't being truthful when he says he wasn't aware of them. Or as Wright said, Obama says what he has to say because he is a politician.
He's the one who says "Obama... Osama... Obama... Osama".
Um, no. That was Ted Kennedy.
Edit: Although it is quite possible that he was drunk at the time.
I will accept a slip of the tongue or an honest typo. Osama bin Ladin has certainly been on the tip of everybody's tongue for the last 7 years. But someone like Limbaugh rattling on "Obama... Osama... Obama... Osama" deliberately running them together like that, is what I'm talking about.
|
|
Seriously I'm 26 I make $14 an hour have a good credit rating and I could only afford to live in an apartment unless I was willing to buy a house in size comparative to my 1 bedroom apartment on a 1/4 acre lot at 175,000 dollars (since I refused to get into a variable interest loan even before the crash because I'm not a moron). Thank god that the market crashed and houses are now being sold at close to what they are worth instead of 2-3 times what they should be worth. also I didn't have to buy a forclosed home which is a blessing since when people know they are being forclosed on they tend to wreck the joint.
|
|
I will accept a slip of the tongue or an honest typo. Osama bin Ladin has certainly been on the tip of everybody's tongue for the last 7 years. But someone like Limbaugh rattling on "Obama... Osama... Obama... Osama" deliberately running them together like that, is what I'm talking about.
He's the one who says "Obama... Osama... Obama... Osama".
Um, no. That was Ted Kennedy.
Edit: Although it is quite possible that he was drunk at the time.
I actually heard that discussion on Rush Limbaugh. He was discussing Sen. Kennedy's remarks. Then someone took his remarks out of context and the left has been running with it ever since. I would suggest that if you want to know what Rush Limbaugh actually says you should take the time to listen to him. You might even find it as enjoyable as I find listening to Air America.
Oh, I'll take a shot at this, for the most part it sucks to have so many americans loosing their homes, but the fact is that the housing market has been artificially inflated for the past twenty years due in no small part to the government. The fact is that this crash was actually necessary for the housing market to stabilize and make home ownership possible for younger generations. I was able to buy a house due to the crash, and you know what I wouldn't say my home is worth more than the 100,000 I paid for it. But had I gone to buy my home two years ago, it would have been valued at near 200,000 and the only way I could've afforded it would have been to take one of those crappy loans that caused the market to crash (and if you do the research when a bank wants to open a branch they can actually be forced to accept a certain # of low income applicants in the community, the only way to do this is to give them one of those loans). Yes it sucks how many forclosures are going on right now. But the market has actually begun to stabilize and recover (with an emphasis put on buying pre-existing homes instead of new which is also a good thing because it helps fend off sub-division sprawl and enables people to actually have more than thirty feet of yard in any direction).And to those of you libertarians out there, any thoughts that government deregulation is a good thing, the housing crisis is the proof that there is a need for it. The reason there are regulations on business is to protect us the consumer, not to screw over the producer.
As consumers, why wouldn't we favor regulation?
Let's just clean up the government, not cut out its legs from under it.
THANK YOU! My wife and I have been looking to purchase a house for the last few years. Could we have gotten a house already with one of those bad loans a couple of years ago? Sure, but we knew those were bad loans and being responsible individuals we choose not to threaten our future with them. We also didn't want to pay way more for a house than it was actually worth. Which upsets me when I hear about people getting bailed out for making bad decisions. It is almost like I'm being punished for being a responsible adult. I mean come on people, loan rates are at their lowest in decades and you have a variable rate, you don't think that rate is going to increase?
Now I realize that some people were duped by some of these companies. And I feel for them and don't want to see them thrown out of their homes if we can avoid it. I'd like to see some of those loans fixed and such, but I dislike the idea of bailouts. All that does is keep house prices artifically high. As for the speculators that bought several houses and now are stuck with them. Make them eat the loss, you want to play big, you have to be prepared to lose big.
I actually heard that discussion on Rush Limbaugh. He was discussing Sen. Kennedy's remarks. Then someone took his remarks out of context and the left has been running with it ever since. I would suggest that if you want to know what Rush Limbaugh actually says you should take the time to listen to him. You might even find it as enjoyable as I find listening to Air America.I will accept a slip of the tongue or an honest typo. Osama bin Ladin has certainly been on the tip of everybody's tongue for the last 7 years. But someone like Limbaugh rattling on "Obama... Osama... Obama... Osama" deliberately running them together like that, is what I'm talking about.
He's the one who says "Obama... Osama... Obama... Osama".
Um, no. That was Ted Kennedy.
Edit: Although it is quite possible that he was drunk at the time.
Is Air America still on?
|
|
Is Air America still on?I actually heard that discussion on Rush Limbaugh. He was discussing Sen. Kennedy's remarks. Then someone took his remarks out of context and the left has been running with it ever since. I would suggest that if you want to know what Rush Limbaugh actually says you should take the time to listen to him. You might even find it as enjoyable as I find listening to Air America.I will accept a slip of the tongue or an honest typo. Osama bin Ladin has certainly been on the tip of everybody's tongue for the last 7 years. But someone like Limbaugh rattling on "Obama... Osama... Obama... Osama" deliberately running them together like that, is what I'm talking about.
He's the one who says "Obama... Osama... Obama... Osama".
Um, no. That was Ted Kennedy.
Edit: Although it is quite possible that he was drunk at the time.
Yeah they just don't have Franken anymore, and some cash issues
|
|
i was referring to obama's comments at a san fransisco fundraiser, not the city itself, sorry.
My bad. Hearing too much Fox News lately from my co-workers and guildmates, where everything is the fault of 'San Francisco values' and stuff, so I jumped the gun and conflated your reference to the popular talking points of 'coast cities, immoral,' 'educated people, elitists,' 'yankees, evil,' and 'brown people, unclean.'
One thing I kind of hate about *both sides* (and which I have been guilty of myself), is the tendency to demonize those who disagree with them. Ron Paul is deemed *crazy!* for disagreeing with the mainstream Republican party, just as Dennis Kucinich is deemed *crazy!* for disagreeing with the mainstream Democratic party. (Either or both of them might well be crazy, but not for disagreeing with their parties, both of which have adopted some pretty crazy planks!)
I don't agree with a lot of stuff being said by McCain. (Which pains me, because I was a huge McCain supporter just eight years ago, when Bush's campaign was spreading talking points about him being unstable and unreliable from his time as a PoW and having 'black babies' and I kind of wanted John McCain to punch Bush right in the face at a debate, by way of rebuttal.) But I don't think McCain's crazy or evil. Nor do I think Barak Obama is a white-hating secret Muslim Machurian candidate who wants to destroy America, no matter how many times Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly gets on Fox News and says so. I can't sit through one of Obama's speeches, because I'm not terribly interested in basing my vote on his impressive public speaking skills, and, in my experience, it seems that all of my Republican friends are the one's listening to Obama's speeches, because it's all they ever talk about (while none of my Democratic friends are, which is just odd, but then I think they all decided who they were voting for already and don't really need to hear more boring speeches).
I hear every day at work and every night on Ventrilo that 'liberals' are crazy, naive and or stupid for being anti-torture and pro-America and pro-small government and pro-fiscal responsibility and very much pro-getting government the hell off peoples backs and out of their bedrooms and uteruses and cells and email and phone records. (I wonder some days if Ronald Reagan would break down in tears to see what the Republican party he helped lead out of the wilderness has turned into...)
I turn on the TV, and I hear the same stuff. Big companies make massive mistakes, defraud their workers, strip their pensions, lay off tens of thousands, move to Bahrain, invest in patently artificial get rich quick schemes, and then *get bailed out* for their irresponsible behavior by the same government that has overseen the largest increase in federal power and in federal spending in generations.
But if a homeowner has trouble meeting their mortgage, they are advised to 'buckle down, get a second job and cancel that vacation, but whatever you do, pay your mortgage!' by a politician who is worth north of $100 million, while his economic advisor insists that Americans are 'whiny' and that any economic hardship they may be experiencing is 'all in their heads.'
And *I'm* the crazy irresponsible one for not voting for the champion of punishing those of us who've kept our noses clean, paid our bills and kept our credit clear by inflating the costs for *everything* to pay for those Wall Street 'free-market' champions, with their million-dollar golden parachutes and half-dozen homes, now standing there, hat in hand, begging for another rate increase, for another Fed bailout, for yet more forgiveness for their fiscal irresponsibility.
Meh. I wouldn't mind someday living in a country where the responsible grown-ups are encouraged, and the irresponsible screw-ups (and yeah, the occasional outright crook who knew darn well that he was peddling junk) aren't rewarded.
|
|
These are all things that people have used against him or around him that have a lot to do with him not being ethnically caucasian, for being from and a part of a community that really isn't like anybody on American currency.Do these attacks continue? They sure do.
Americans, suspicious that the Obamas have benefited from affirmative action without being properly grateful, and skeptical that Michelle really likes “The Brady Bunch” and “The Dick Van Dike Show,” reject the 47-year-old black contender as too uppity and untested. Instead, they embrace 72-year-old John McCain and 44-year-old Sarah Palin, whose average age is 58, a mere two years older than the average age of the Obama-Biden ticket
That was written by one of Obama's supporters. It's not Republicans writing this stuff.
|
|
i was referring to obama's comments at a san fransisco fundraiser, not the city itself, sorry.My bad. Hearing too much Fox News lately from my co-workers and guildmates, where everything is the fault of 'San Francisco values' and stuff, so I jumped the gun and conflated your reference to the popular talking points of 'coast cities, immoral,' 'educated people, elitists,' 'yankees, evil,' and 'brown people, unclean.'
Really, because I watch Fox News, when I can convince my daughter to let me change it off Noggin, and I haven't heard anything like this.
Really, because I watch Fox News, when I can convince my daughter to let me change it off Noggin, and I haven't heard anything like this.i was referring to obama's comments at a san fransisco fundraiser, not the city itself, sorry.My bad. Hearing too much Fox News lately from my co-workers and guildmates, where everything is the fault of 'San Francisco values' and stuff, so I jumped the gun and conflated your reference to the popular talking points of 'coast cities, immoral,' 'educated people, elitists,' 'yankees, evil,' and 'brown people, unclean.'
Yeah, I haven't either. Although, it wouldn't surprise me if Ann said something this stupid.
|
|
Um, no. That was Ted Kennedy.
Edit: Although it is quite possible that he was drunk at the time.
Was it a day that ends in 'y?'
'Cause yeah, he's not exactly a poster-child for prohibition (irony intended). :)
Then again, the man's big distinction in life is that he's the only Kennedy no one thought was worth killing.
Can you imagine if Obama had picked Caroline Kennedy as his VP? All the shooters and militia types would probably end up catching each other in the crossfire.
|
|
He's the one who saw his wife referred to as "Obama's baby-mama" on Fox.
Had to do some research as I had not seen it, but as HufPo points out, to be fair it was a play on Michelle calling Barack her "baby's daddy" when he his Senate seat in 2004. It might have been a poor choice of words but it was not meant to be derogitory, especially since the uproar over the term came as Hollywood was releasing a comedy entitled "Baby Mamma."
Except that McCain is suppose to be another four years of Bush. Is that an era or a dynasty?
Oh, here's a freebie hardy har har for you libs:
bumper sticker said: "Jan 20, 2009: The End of an Error"
That is pretty funny, even if it is against my team.
|
|
Really, because I watch Fox News, when I can convince my daughter to let me change it off Noggin, and I haven't heard anything like this.i was referring to obama's comments at a san fransisco fundraiser, not the city itself, sorry.My bad. Hearing too much Fox News lately from my co-workers and guildmates, where everything is the fault of 'San Francisco values' and stuff, so I jumped the gun and conflated your reference to the popular talking points of 'coast cities, immoral,' 'educated people, elitists,' 'yankees, evil,' and 'brown people, unclean.'
He's probably doing what a lot of people do and lumping all right wing broadcasts under the label "Fox News" despite several not being on a fox news station. In this instance he probably has to listen to the Savage Nation, probably one of the worst radio personalities I've ever listened to and the only man who has made me want to vote for someone merely because he said not too.
Had to do some research as I had not seen it, but as HufPo points out, to be fair it was a play on Michelle calling Barack her "baby's daddy" when he his Senate seat in 2004. It might have been a poor choice of words but it was not meant to be derogitory, especially since the uproar over the term came as Hollywood was releasing a comedy entitled "Baby Mamma."
Whether it was intentionally derogitory or not, you would never have seen Fox referring to Hillary Clinton as Bill's baby-mama. But I still doubt it was actually a play on Michelle Obama's words in 2004. My guess it was some clueless guy trying to sound hip.
I actually heard that discussion on Rush Limbaugh. He was discussing Sen. Kennedy's remarks. Then someone took his remarks out of context and the left has been running with it ever since. I would suggest that if you want to know what Rush Limbaugh actually says you should take the time to listen to him. You might even find it as enjoyable as I find listening to Air America.
I might accept that explanation... if Limbaugh wasn't still running with it as well.
|
|
Really, because I watch Fox News, when I can convince my daughter to let me change it off Noggin, and I haven't heard anything like this.My bad. Hearing too much Fox News lately from my co-workers and guildmates, where everything is the fault of 'San Francisco values' and stuff, so I jumped the gun and conflated your reference to the popular talking points of 'coast cities, immoral,' 'educated people, elitists,' 'yankees, evil,' and 'brown people, unclean.'
San Francisco values a term used by Bill O'Reilly, 'culture warrior,' whom *I've* seen on Fox (at the gym), usually talking about border security or something, and I only see about 15 minutes of Fox News a week (since I usually change the channel to Sci-Fi or Discovery or the History channel or something).
It's really easy to Google this stuff. Don't take my word for it.
(looking at the bottom of his hoof) Oh man! What did I just step in? Ewww! Another political thread.
Really, because I watch Fox News, when I can convince my daughter to let me change it off Noggin, and I haven't heard anything like this.My bad. Hearing too much Fox News lately from my co-workers and guildmates, where everything is the fault of 'San Francisco values' and stuff, so I jumped the gun and conflated your reference to the popular talking points of 'coast cities, immoral,' 'educated people, elitists,' 'yankees, evil,' and 'brown people, unclean.'
San Francisco values a term used by Bill O'Reilly, 'culture warrior,' whom *I've* seen on Fox (at the gym), usually talking about border security or something, and I only see about 15 minutes of Fox News a week (since I usually change the channel to Sci-Fi or Discovery or the History channel or something).
It's really easy to Google this stuff. Don't take my word for it.
Yes, Bill has mentioned "San Francisco values" and denounces them, but I don't remember him saying everything bad in America is due to them.
|
Yes, Bill has mentioned "San Francisco values" and denounces them, but I don't remember him saying everything bad in America is due to them.
A quick googling of "Bill O'Reilly San Francisco Values" brought up this BO'R column from November, 2006, in which it seems Bill feels that "San Francisco values" can be blamed for quite a few Un-American things:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229883,00.html
Also, just for fun, the Wikipedia entry for San Francisco Values:
Yes, Bill has mentioned "San Francisco values" and denounces them, but I don't remember him saying everything bad in America is due to them.A quick googling of "Bill O'Reilly San Francisco Values" brought up this BO'R column from November, 2006, in which it seems Bill feels that "San Francisco values" can be blamed for quite a few Un-American things:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229883,00.html
Also, just for fun, the Wikipedia entry for San Francisco Values:
I stand corrected then.
Yes, Bill has mentioned "San Francisco values" and denounces them, but I don't remember him saying everything bad in America is due to them.
Anybody whose claim to fame is that, instead of working on our common problems, we should declare war on other Americans is decidedly a crackpot in my book. What about the economy, Bill? "First we have to win the Culture Wars and re-take America from the evil secular liberals!" What about Al Quaida? "Gays are worse than terrorists!" This is not someone whose opinions carry a lot of weight with rational people.
He might have a point about San Francisco, though -- isn't Pelosi from there? What about the economy, Nancy? "Chickens on egg farms need $100 an hour wages, funded with tax dollars!" What about Al Quaida? "If conservatives weren't all so evil, we'd all be best friends and love each other!" She gives the same kinds of nutty out-of-touch vitriol.
Anyone who spends all their time hating the "other side" instead of working on real issues isn't someone whose political advice I can respect.
|
|
Really, because I watch Fox News, when I can convince my daughter to let me change it off Noggin, and I haven't heard anything like this.My bad. Hearing too much Fox News lately from my co-workers and guildmates, where everything is the fault of 'San Francisco values' and stuff, so I jumped the gun and conflated your reference to the popular talking points of 'coast cities, immoral,' 'educated people, elitists,' 'yankees, evil,' and 'brown people, unclean.'
San Francisco values a term used by Bill O'Reilly, 'culture warrior,' whom *I've* seen on Fox (at the gym), usually talking about border security or something, and I only see about 15 minutes of Fox News a week (since I usually change the channel to Sci-Fi or Discovery or the History channel or something).
It's really easy to Google this stuff. Don't take my word for it.
Well that explains it. I can't stand Bill O'Reilly, because he spent so much time flip-flopping between supporting Bush and Kerry during the 2004 elections.
Yes, Bill has mentioned "San Francisco values" and denounces them, but I don't remember him saying everything bad in America is due to them.Anybody whose claim to fame is that, instead of working on our common problems, we should declare war on other Americans is decidedly a crackpot in my book. What about the economy, Bill? "First we have to win the Culture Wars and re-take America from the evil secular liberals!" What about Al Quaida? "Gays are worse than terrorists!" This is not someone whose opinions carry a lot of weight with rational people.
He might have a point about San Francisco, though -- isn't Pelosi from there? What about the economy, Nancy? "Chickens on egg farms need $100 an hour wages, funded with tax dollars!" What about Al Quaida? "If conservatives weren't all so evil, we'd all be best friends and love each other!" She gives the same kinds of nutty out-of-touch vitriol.
Anyone who spends all their time hating the "other side" instead of working on real issues isn't someone whose political advice I can respect.
Kirth, wanting people who you don't agree with out of power isn't hate. It's not a "war" on other Americans. Bill's wrong(in my view) on many things, but he's not a crackpot.
|
These are all things that people have used against him or around him that have a lot to do with him not being ethnically caucasian, for being from and a part of a community that really isn't like anybody on American currency.Do these attacks continue? They sure do.
Americans, suspicious that the Obamas have benefited from affirmative action without being properly grateful, and skeptical that Michelle really likes “The Brady Bunch” and “The Dick Van Dike Show,” reject the 47-year-old black contender as too uppity and untested. Instead, they embrace 72-year-old John McCain and 44-year-old Sarah Palin, whose average age is 58, a mere two years older than the average age of the Obama-Biden ticketThat was written by one of Obama's supporters. It's not Republicans writing this stuff.
Um, did you actually read Dowd's column? That column is an imaginary screenplay setting up McCain/Palin: The Chick-flick Movie. It isn't an attack on Obama, it is making fun of Palin. Unless, of course, this is supposed to be some kind of Palin endorsement:
The movie ends with the former beauty queen shaking out her pinned-up hair, taking off her glasses, slipping on ruby red peep-toe platform heels that reveal a pink French-style pedicure, and facing down Vladimir Putin in an island in the Bering Strait. Putting away her breast pump, she points her rifle and informs him frostily that she has some expertise in Russia because it’s close to Alaska. “Back off, Commie dude,” she says. “I’m a much better shot than Cheney.”[/quote=Maureen Dowd]
|
|
Yes I did read Dowd's piece. I quoted that particular section because it was relevent to the discussion about Obama and the race card. My point was that it was liberals putting discriminatory statements into the mouths of conservatives, not conservatives actually saying them. The closing part was not relevant to the discussion at hand, henceforth it was not included. No conservative I have heard has ever called Obama uppity or said anything about affirmative action. In fact the conservatives I listen to and converse with say that Obama's own story is proof that people can make something of themselves without affirmative action. If anything they have called him a hypocrite for telling his story and then saying that no one in America can do exactly what he has done.
|
|
I actually heard that discussion on Rush Limbaugh. He was discussing Sen. Kennedy's remarks. Then someone took his remarks out of context and the left has been running with it ever since. I would suggest that if you want to know what Rush Limbaugh actually says you should take the time to listen to him. You might even find it as enjoyable as I find listening to Air America.I might accept that explanation... if Limbaugh wasn't still running with it as well.
I would have to say that he would not have to keep explaining himself if people would stop misrepresenting what he has said. The point of him still replaying Sen. Kennedy's remarks is to illustrate that the Democrats are the one saying these things and they are the ones obsessed with Obama's race. And that is because he and other conservatives keep being accused of being racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes.
no offense, but you don't have to wear a white sheet to be put off by obama's elitist leanings (san francisco, anyone?).I've gone there on vacation. It's a very cool town, with some really awesome museums and a park that beats the pants off of the one in New York City. (San Diego has a better zoo, IMO.)
I've never really understood why 'San Francisco' is used as an insult, other than the obvious homophobic stuff (spent a week or so there, didn't see a single gay person, that I know of...).
Barack Obama gave a speech in San Fransico where he described middle class Americans as "bitter" and "clinging to their guns and their religion." That's what Derek was referencing, not anything to do with homosexuals.
Edit: Looks like Derek beat me to the punch.
Was the comment in reference to middle American, or middle-class America? Those groups are the same as far as I know.
I haven't read the speech, nor do I know the context. But on the face of it, I'm not sure he's wrong. Though I do think it was a stupid thing for someone running for president to say.
Except that McCain is suppose to be another four years of Bush. Is that an era or a dynasty?
Ok, so let's say McCain is another four years of Bush (which I think any objective person would realize is hogwash), shouldn't the real question be is it four more years of Cheney? I mean isn't Cheney the real power? At least that is what I hear a lot from some folks.
Except that McCain is suppose to be another four years of Bush. Is that an era or a dynasty?Ok, so let's say McCain is another four years of Bush (which I think any objective person would realize is hogwash), shouldn't the real question be is it four more years of Cheney? I mean isn't Cheney the real power? I least that is what I hear a lot from some folks.
I've said it before; I'd take McCain over Bush any day. I don't know that he cleaves to the president any more than most Republicans. Possibly less than many.
Kirth, wanting people who you don't agree with out of power isn't hate. It's not a "war" on other Americans. Bill's wrong(in my view) on many things, but he's not a crackpot.
This directly from Bill's book, Culture Warrior:
"For a variety of reasons that I will explain, I have chosen to jump into the fray and become a warrior in the vicious culture war that is currently under way in the United States of America. And war is exactly the right term. On one side of the battlefield are the armies of the traditionalists like me, people who believe the United States was well founded and has done enormous good for the world. On the other side are the committed forces of the secular-progressive movement that want to change America dramatically... Because of the very personal nature of the battle I have chosen to fight, this is a difficult book to write. I don't like to sound bitter, but the truth is, I am bitter to some extent. Although I have won far more battles than I've lost, my life has changed drastically."
If he's not a crackpot, I do feel strongly that his sense of priorities is a bit suspect, insofar as he totally neglects the real (rather than media-manufacured) challenges facing America in favor of the more sensational and lucrative "loyal Americans" vs. "traitors" stuff.