| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: The Real Obama - Part 3 Posted by: Mattinglyinthehall - Dude [01629107] Sat, Jun 14, 2008, 07:58 link to part 1 link to part 2 | |||||||
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] | ||||||||
| 886 | Boldwin ID: 2962619 Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 14:23 | And no I wouldn't buy it if The Joyce Foundation or the Woods Fund said Obama qualified either. | ||||||
| 887 | Boldwin ID: 2962619 Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 14:26 |
Tree These foundations have very incestuous boards of directors as we have seen Obama himself recommended to positions on one board from members of other boards of directors of foundations. I would expect that to hold true doubly between related Annenberg foundations. | ||||||
| 888 | Boldwin ID: 2962619 Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 14:28 | And that McCain was backed by 'Knight Commander' Annenberg's Foundation doesn't reassure me anymore than George Soros' backing of McCain. | ||||||
| 889 | Tree ID: 219262723 Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 14:45 |
because you live in your own little insane, bigoted, world of lies you tell yourself and anyone else who will listen. even when wrong, you're not man enough to admit it or accept it. you're a lost cause. enjoy your abyss of instability, and when this country improves over the next few years with the election of Barack Obama, you'll still be there on the street corner, receiving signal with your tin hat. | ||||||
| 890 | walk ID: 181472714 Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 14:49 | "you'll still be there on the street corner, receiving signal with your tin hat." Oh man, that was funny, sorry. | ||||||
| 891 | Boldwin ID: 2962619 Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 15:02 | Why is it that Tree is so resistant to doing real research and contributing more than snippiness? The guy has enuff time to do it. He can do it for fantasy sports. What gives? Some guys you prod and they turn into MITH. Some guys not so much. Funny insults, well a little is fun, a lot is not. | ||||||
| 892 | walk ID: 181472714 Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 15:20 |
I dunno. Anyway, regarding #848, enough bull already. That WND article is rubbish and McCain himself is now ranting about it, in South Florida, hypocritically. I just read that in 1999 McCain's International Republican Institute contributed $850k to an pro-Palistinian organization founded Khalidi in 1999 (according to the Obama campaign, tax records confirm this)...whereas Obama was at a dinner with the guy (a guy who is highly regarded as a Palistinian expert, not a terrorist). I guess using McCain's own standards, he's a bigger terrorist sympathizer than Obama. McCain Wants Tape Released (so maybe he should release the donation data) The point is that these relationships are not Bourne identity collusion and anti-American, on either side, but as long as folks continue to exaggerate them (you know who) and McCain continues to try and scare folks with these stories, then you lower the discourse, raise fears, divide the country and make governing more difficult. You can either climb on board the fraidy-cat train or not. | ||||||
| 893 | Boldwin ID: 2962619 Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 15:34 |
No one is 'dividing America'. America is naturally divided into those people who think socialism and wealth distribution either works best [or works best for their own selfish purposes] and those who don't. What you really don't want is for people to become aware that that is the issue at stake. You are well aware that you don't win that argument fair and square. Not today anyway. So you hope to delay that realization till... ...after the election ...after 51 percent of the voters don't pay taxes and will vote for wealth redistribution until it's all gone ...after half of Mexico lives here and votes democratic ...lets all be civil until the revolution. | ||||||
| 894 | Tree ID: 219262723 Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 15:52 |
Baldwin, here's your answer: i have ZERO respect for you. you've been proven a liar on these boards, you've shown you have no issue spreading falsehoods and outright lies about people, and you call out others for insults yet have no qualms about insulting others yourself. you've shown a taste for homophobia, bigotry, xenophobia, a hint of racism, and a slew of other characteristics i find despicable. when proven wrong, you change the subject, deny what you said is there in clear black and white text, or somehow try and twist it into something completely different than what you originally said. you're the kind of person who really could contribute more, but doesn't. at one point, even though we disagreed, you at least made sense and were coherent, but in the last 3 months you've descended into a babbling loon. and then you say some people "you prod and they turn into MITH." what does that mean? become a good poster that YOU drive away because you're such a prick? because that's what happened to MITH. he got so sick of your crap that he left, leaving this board weaker. i won't go as far. i like it here, and i think there are a lot of cool people on this forum - some of whom i've never met despite living in the same city, and others who i've had beers with despite being on opposite coasts. but i will go as far as not bothering to address you anymore. it's an annoying waste of time dealing with a hate-mongering, hypocritical pain in the ass like you. i should have stopped dealing with months ago, but for a small amount of time, it was fun and easy - like shooting fish in a barrel. in the meantime, enjoy whatever is beaming into your head. it's made for good theatre here for a bit, but now, it's just a bunch of annoying words and gurgling sounds. | ||||||
| 895 | Pancho Villa ID: 51546319 Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 18:34 |
No one is 'dividing America'. Bullshit. The constant refrain from the right about what and who is anti-American used to be the domain of fringe nuts who worshipped Ann Coulter. Now that's been brought to the forefront of the American political scene with Sarah Palin identifying who and where is pro-America. Since you regard both these women as goddesses, it's understandable that you don't see this behavior as nationally divisive, and wouldn't admit it even if you did. We're continually warned that when they[Obama's world of educational and community organizers] use the word hope, they mean hoping for successful marxist pressure, but you fail to want to understand how this rhetoric has enflamed the God, guts and guns crowd. I haven't seen talk of joining militias, armed insurrection, and general desires for violent solutions since the days of the Weather Underground. This transcends politics; it is a societal issue. If you think I'm exaggerating, then you haven't perused a thread on FreeRepublic or TownHall lately. | ||||||
| 896 | Perm Dude ID: 219572916 Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 18:59 |
Palin: Obama wants to appoint judges to confiscate your property. Apparently she never read the Kelo decision... | ||||||
| 897 | Myboyjack Dude ID: 014826271 Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 19:28 |
Apparently she never read the Kelo decision... Remind me, who were the Kelo dissenters? | ||||||
| 898 | Perm Dude ID: 219572916 Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 19:44 | Kelo never would have been decided without judges appointed by Republican presidents, MBJ. 3 of 5 were Republican appointees. Those Republican appointments gave sweeping eminent domain powers to local governments. | ||||||
| 899 | Myboyjack Dude ID: 014826271 Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 20:16 | Obama would gladly re-nominate any of the Judges in the majority. He would, if he could, remove all the judges in the dissent. If you like Kelo, you'll love Obama's kinda SCOTUS nominee. | ||||||
| 900 | Boldwin ID: 2962619 Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 21:28 | Obama or is it just generic democrat power lust is like the black hole of honesty. Sad, PD, really sad. Speak the truth within your heart. | ||||||
| 901 | bibA ID: 229262715 Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 22:35 |
So MBJ, I can see Boldwin actually believing that Obama would confiscate our property, but do you in fact agree with Palin when she says that he would appoint judges who would "confiscate the property of American citizens"? That "he’d want to re-write the founding document of our great nation to accomplish his goals"? | ||||||
| 902 | Boldwin ID: 2962619 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 03:34 |
I think the answer lies in the writings of Saul Alinsky and Antonio Gramsci. What he does will be a balance between what they recommended and the pragmatic realities of what he as a politician can accomplish. Neither of them AKAIK recommended violent sudden revolution and both recommended a slow march thru the institutions converting as many as possible into instruments that deliver hardcore socialism/marxism. Off the top of my head that obviously involves his SCOTUS appointments. It involves a dance between the radicals he trained and himself as president. "You see what 'the people/mob is demanding', so how can I not deliver it to them'? So it should look like the '60's' only this time with a pliant administrator happily delivering on their every demand 'if he can only get the Dem supermajority to go along'. Of course it won't really be 'the people' demanding it. It will be paid rent-a-mobs making demands in the name of the people. The MSM will eat it up and go along with the play-acting like a drunk sucking on a bottle of Boone's Farm. Enuff people trained in Ayer's style education grade schools, pre-kindergarten, after-school programs and in a couple decades even the non-college educated segment of the population will be pod-people like Acorn radicals and the radical studies college crowd. Just take that template, project it onto whatever issue you want to prognisticate upon, and you can guess pretty accurately what they have planned. Of course throw in a great depression and they won't have to slow march quite so slowly. *cough* | ||||||
| 903 | Boldwin ID: 2962619 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 09:23 |
That "he’d want to re-write the founding document of our great nation to accomplish his goals"? - bibA He wants to. He's all for reinterpreting the Constitution, inventing an entitlement/requirement to redistribute wealth but he just doesn't think it would be the easiest way to bring it about. Here he discusses this exact thing in 2001. | ||||||
| 904 | Perm Dude ID: 219572916 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 09:45 |
Actually, he's arguing the opposite of what you think: "You know, maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but, you know, I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way." He later added, "You know, the court's just not very good at it, and politically, it's just -- it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So, I mean, I think that, although, you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally -- you know, I think you can, any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts -- I think that, as a practical matter, our institutions just are poorly equipped to do it." His argument is not only the opposite of what you say it is (no surprise there) but is the conservative judicial argument that law is best sprung from the people up rather than the judges down. The fact is, Obama never talks about redistribution of wealth except to say that the Warren Court never got into that (and used that as an example of how the Warren Court wasn't as radical as has been characterized), and to point out that doing so through the courts is a bad idea. What a surprise--that's the opposite of what you say he is saying. He goes on to say that liberals have overrelied upon the courts to make societal changes. The thrust of Obama's argument, in fact, has nothing to do with wealth. It has to do with rights. | ||||||
| 905 | Boldwin ID: 2962619 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 10:02 |
Obama is a key sponsor of legislation already passed [aparently with globalist George Bush's blessing] that commits America to hand over 800 Billion Dollars to the rest of the world, as well as [hard to believe] commits the next president to go along with Kyoto, and other pernicious globalist projects. 800 Billion here and 800 Billion there and pretty soon you are talking about some serious money. But spending money here at home is what he's all about when he goes off about isolationism. Politicians will just say any impossible deceptive thing. | ||||||
| 906 | boikin ID: 532592112 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 10:32 |
No one is 'dividing America'. Bullshit. The constant refrain from the right about what and who is anti-American used to be the domain of fringe nuts who worshipped Ann Coulter. Now that's been brought to the forefront of the American political scene with Sarah Palin identifying who and where is pro-America. don't put the blame of this one on just one side it takes 2 to divide. When it becomes acceptable to decorate your house with the lynching of VP candidate(or anyone) there are some serious problems with this country. when you define you politics by hate we all lose. | ||||||
| 907 | Boldwin ID: 2962619 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 10:57 |
Messiah Complex You too can be converted. 
| ||||||
| 908 | Perm Dude ID: 219572916 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 11:00 |
That's a real tire-swinging argument, boikin. The Republican strategy for years now has been to parse out and demonize Democrats in order to capture a small majority to rule. Even anectdotal "evidence" doesn't rebut that the hate being spewed is mostly coming from the Right. We see it in the current camaign very clearly. Do you genuinely think that if McCain had the money to do a half hour infomercial that he'd have made it about himself and his plans, as Obama did last night? McCain almost certainly would have made a long series of negative associations about Obama, interspaced and slathered with the soothing political lotion of "experience" and "honor" that only he could provide to fix these problems Obama would make worse. Negative campaigning is all about division and the exploitation of differences. McCain has mimicked the Republican strategy, running on ten years now, of dividing "real America" from "Liberals." Which candidate is the one talking about inclusiveness and which one is talking about divisions? Old anecdotes aside, identity politics has been sharpened by Republicans. It is no coincidence that they'll get their butts handed to them in a few days as a result. | ||||||
| 909 | walk ID: 181472714 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 12:36 |
I also agree with PD. I think the Dems are not blameless about divisiveness, but it is not even close which party relies on identity politics and runs nastier, more personal and meaner campaigns. The recent trends started with Newt's approach to Clinton, and then continued with Bush/Rove and has continued throughout the Bush presidency and now we see it in an awful way with McCain and Palin. I think McCain's heart is not into the negative campaigning, but he's doing it non-stop and it seems that he feels he has no choice. Palin seems willing to say anything to stir up her crowds, and it's ugly. The latest is that Obama would take away your freedom. Oh, and the ties to Rashidi, of which McCain has far greater ties. Obama's campaign is not devoid of neg tactics, but it's always a matter of degree, and it seems that the intensity, frequency and personal nature of the Palin & McCain comments against Obama are far greater than what Obama says about McCain and Palin. It's not even close. This behavior on behalf of Palin, and to a lesser extent, McCain is what exacerbates divisiveness. Now we have folks at their rallies yelling socialist, terrorist, muslim, etc. This is not helpful. We do not have folks at Obama rallies yelling "dictator, kill him, fascist, puppet lady" etc. | ||||||
| 910 | Boxman ID: 337352111 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 13:34 |
I think the Dems are not blameless about divisiveness, but it is not even close which party relies on identity politics and runs nastier, more personal and meaner campaigns. You guys just whip out the race card and "The Bradley Effect" instead. | ||||||
| 911 | boikin ID: 532592112 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 13:35 |
PD, Walk i was making reference to attitudes by the general public. Not about the political campaigning tactics. And walk i have heard people yelling these words "dictator, kill him, fascist, puppet lady" etc. I think the point where i thought things had gone to far was at an evolution/creationism debate last week when instead of using science and logic to disprove the creationist the speaker resorted to jokes and pictures of Bush. I am sure that plays to his assumed audience but as someone who was just interested in the science it comes of amateurish and divisive. I was for Obama till a week ago until I saw something on Obama and McCains environmental policies and i realized that Obama is no more a profit that McCain is a demon. they were both politicians spreading false hopes and false fears, neither understanding the causes or the real solutions to problems or at least not admitting it as to show weakness. Yes, maybe the republicans throw the first stone, but sky is so dark with the throwing of stones i can no longer see the sky. | ||||||
| 912 | Perm Dude ID: 219572916 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 14:10 |
You guys just whip out the race card and "The Bradley Effect" instead. You guys? [There is no Bradley Effect, BTW. Never was]. | ||||||
| 913 | boikin ID: 532592112 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 14:23 | [There is no Bradley Effect, BTW. Never was]. was it just bad polling? or just a coincidence. | ||||||
| 914 | walk ID: 181472714 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 14:39 |
The Dems whip out the race card as if there are not overt or subtle attacks against Obama cos of his race? Please Box. boikin, 911, I see what you are saying now. of the reasons I am for Obama is that I see him as trying to make an effort to be less divisive. Our country is also divided, and it is not subtle. I cannot disagree on what you witnessed in the science/creationism debate. I was not there. I'd think that the current Palin campaign does not exercise nearly as much intellectual curiosity as the Obama/Biden campgain. | ||||||
| 915 | Perm Dude ID: 219572916 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 14:55 |
Old wives tale, mostly. There is some evidence that, in some places it may have occurred, but bad polling is almost certainly to blame IMO. It was certainly the case in the race for which the effect was named. Nick Silver of fivethirtyeight.com with a post about this. I don't agree with him completely, but I think he's right that the Bradley Effect, if it existed previously, is gone. | ||||||
| 916 | boikin ID: 532592112 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 15:00 | I'd think that the current Palin campaign does not exercise nearly as much intellectual curiosity as the Obama/Biden campgain. this maybe true, since honestly i am not sure i heard Palin say anything. I just believe that if the Obama/Biden campaign really believed in unity they would come out and say to supporters "I know that you are have been unhappy by some the policies of past administration, but attitudes of anger are not the attitudes of the future, when you seen the McCain supporter ask them if they would like ride to vote." | ||||||
| 917 | Tree ID: 219262723 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 15:00 |
i'm not exactly sure at what point it became a right wing rallying cry to say "hey, you guys are calling us racists" if someone did indeed call you out on that. if you darken photos to make someone appear darker than they are, that's racial. if you constantly hint at someone's religious background - regardless of the truth - or if you constantly invoke their middle name to make them appear to be arab - you're doing things that are questionable in their ethics and most likely playing the race card. i'm still maintaining there is so much excitement in the prospect of an obama presidency. my best friend - who lives in the florida panhandle - has gotten her boyfriend and a co-worker to vote for Obama, which is no small feat considering their political backgrounds. one thing i think is interesting - if Palin continues to rise in the Republican party, and makes a true run at things in 2012 and/or 2016, i think you'll see a legit third party candidate emerge, with leanings toward the right - maybe someone like Ron Paul... | ||||||
| 918 | walk ID: 181472714 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 15:11 | boikin, I think your point is valid. I also think the Dems have gotten pretty hurt trying to take that tact in the past (see Gore & Kerry). It's a bit of a catch-22 and there's a lot at stake. That said, I still it's very clear which pair of Pres & VP candidates have been more outspokenly negative in their speeches and behavior. | ||||||
| 919 | boikin ID: 532592112 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 15:30 |
if it existed previously, is gone. Ok that is what i read and figured, i was just wondering if there was new evidence that did never existed. It's a bit of a catch-22 and there's a lot at stake. But that has always been the arguement, that there is too much at stake, when is there not too much at stake? If anything there is less at stake this election even if McCain did win dems will have major control of both houses. Even so Rove was considered a genius because he saw how times had changed and in response changed how campaigns were run, well times have changed again is it not time for some one to make that new change? I have a feeling that maybe with a bit luck things will not be this way in four years. I do not think McCain is the person his campaign has become and Obama is not as vengeful as his followers/party...knock on wood. | ||||||
| 920 | Perm Dude ID: 219572916 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 15:55 | I don't think Palin will go anywhere in 4 years. She'll run, and flame out early like Guiliani did. | ||||||
| 921 | Boldwin ID: 2962619 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 16:26 |
Guiliani has the problem that in neither party does he have a natural base. Palin's problem is that she does not have a party power structure which likes her. She being all mavericky. | ||||||
| 922 | Razor ID: 529382710 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 16:54 |
Well, it's not because she's too mavericky. It's because the GOP rightly sees her as a buffoon incapable of winning. I think the GOP might retool and actually trot out someone good in 2012. Maybe a younger guy. It'd be amazing and hilarious if the GOP nominated Bobby Jindal to run against Barack. | ||||||
| 923 | Perm Dude ID: 52943015 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 17:04 |
Jindal is a good pick. But if Obama is doing well in 4 years he'll probably wait. Huckabee is probably a better pick for the evangelicals than Palin, though if the Palin supporters want to continue to blame some other reason than she's not qualified I'd be pleased. So long as Republicans continue to divide themselves the moderates will continue to flock to the Democratic Party. | ||||||
| 924 | Razor ID: 529382710 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 17:20 | It's interesting to note that Jindal's support among Indian-Americans is not good. | ||||||
| 925 | Boldwin ID: 2962619 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 17:27 | Yeah, it's because she's all mavericky. She's intelligent and has the instincts of Reagan. Which puts her at odds with the Rockafellers and such. | ||||||
| 926 | Razor ID: 529382710 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 18:37 | She's an idiot. And I don't know what "has the instincts of Reagan" even means. | ||||||
| 927 | Perm Dude ID: 52943015 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 19:06 | Reagan never spoke of some areas as being "real America" while blaming her problems on the media. Reagan was a uniter. The fact that Palin is married to a guy who wants Alaska to be its own country should be clue enough about how Reagan-like Palin really is. | ||||||
| 928 | Perm Dude ID: 52943015 Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 19:39 | WND headline? | ||||||
| 929 | Perm Dude ID: 161040312 Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 20:31 |
Obama's grandmother passes away. Sad news at a crazy time. | ||||||
| 930 | bibA ID: 421039315 Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 21:46 | I am sure those on the right such as Rush will be apologizing now for their continuous inuendo suggesting that Obama was untruthful about going to Hawaii to see his ill grandmother. | ||||||
| 931 | sarge33rd ID: 76442923 Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 22:41 | you forget the [/sarcasm] bibA. From the comments in PDs link, it seems some have already said some pretty disgusting things. | ||||||
| 932 | Wilmer McLean ID: 541019711 Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 06:08 |
Obama mocks 87-year old widow.Answering a question from Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times as to the Presidents he has consulted during the transition, Obama took a gratuitous jab at Nancy Reagan, who was recently released from the hospital after breaking her pelvis in a fall. oooooops, Nancy Reagan consulted with an astrologer about Ronald Reagan's schedule after he was shot. It was actually Hillary Clinton who was reported to have engaged in seance-like sessions in which she communed with the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt. | ||||||
| 933 | Boxman ID: 571114225 Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 06:42 |
Can we obtain bipartisan support by insulting the widow of one of the most popular Presidents of all time? YES WE CAN! | ||||||
| 934 | Perm Dude ID: 171049717 Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 09:38 | He called her and she accepted the apology. Not a big deal. She was, of course, using astrology to set his meetings--one of the weirder facts to come out of that Administration. | ||||||
| 935 | Seattle Zen ID: 358591721 Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 11:19 | New Thread! | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | ||||||||