NYT Editorial Blog Unhinged Over McCain’s Obama Girls Gone Wild Ad — See’s Race Baiting Behind Picture of Any White Chick
[Posted by WLS — can I say “chick”?]
The NYT Editorial Board obviously senses that blood has been drawn from Obama by the post-European World Tour as evidenced by the cratering of Obama’s poll numbers under the onslaught of the assault on his unbearable lightness of being (hey-that’s kind of lyrical).
As Ben Smith at Politico notes, they couldn’t even wait for an editorial tomorrow before rushing to condemn McCain for alleged race baiting. Their hook? Well, because the Tennessee GOP ran an ad in the 2006 campaign against Harold Ford which referenced his attendance at a Playboy party — the ad ending with an attractive young white woman peering into the camera and suggestively saying to Ford to “Call me” — therefore the use by the McCain campaign of pictures of Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears is really just code for all you bigoted white people in America to understand that Obama really just wants to sleep with all your women.
The ad gave us an uneasy feeling that the McCain campaign was starting up the same sort of racially tinged attack on Mr. Obama that Republican operatives, some of whom work for Mr. McCain now, ran against Harold Ford, a black candidate for Senate in Tennessee in 2006. That assault, too, began with videos juxtaposing Mr. Ford with young, white women.
Mr. Obama called Mr. McCain on the ploy, saying, quite rightly, that the Republicans are trying to scare voters by pointing out that he “doesn’t look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills.’’
That’s a pathetic excuse for the NYT’s waiving the bloody shirt of racism over this campaign. What Obama actually said was:
So what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, ‘he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name,’ you know, ‘he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”
The obvious import of McCain’s ad is that Obama is, like Hilton and Spears, famous for “being famous.” He’ certainly not famous for anything he’s accomplished in this life.
But to suggest that Obama’s retort is “rightly” calling McCain on this ploy might be accurate but for one inconvenient fact — as noted here by Powerline, Obama made this same pathetic claim a month ago, but without trying to disguise it with the “dollar bill” reference:
We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”
Which only serves to make complete liars out of the Obama campaign’s statement earlier today that he wasn’t referring to race when he made the “dollar bills” reference.
“What Barack Obama was talking about was that he didn’t get here after spending decades in Washington,” Gibbs said Thursday. “There is nothing more to this than the fact that he was describing that he was new to the political scene. He was referring to the fact that he didn’t come into the race with the history of others. It is not about race.”
List that bald-ass lie right there along with the multiple rationalizations about why Obama cancelled the trip to Landstuhl Hospital.
Besides, it wasn’t the McCain campaign that raised the whole Obama/White Chick issue. It was Madtv’s Fear Mandingo Love:
Maybe McCain has hired MadTV to do his campaign spots?
He’s already healing our racial divide, see. It’s gonna be a long, hot summer.
Chris (da1e70) — 7/31/2008 @ 6:02 pmThe girl who is taking Alan Colmes place tonight is showing us how to play the race card. And the accusation that Obama didn’t visit the troops and then went the gym is a “smear.” Is a smear supposed to be the truth ? That’s a new definition, as far as I know. Boy is this going to be a long campaign ’til November.
Oops ! I said “boy.” Can’t do that.
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/31/2008 @ 6:28 pmI guess this means Obama won’t pick Hillary to be his running mate–he’s afraid to be seen with a white woman.
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 7/31/2008 @ 6:39 pm“Maybe McCain has hired MadTV to do his campaign spots?”
He couldn’t be that smart.
Another Drew (a28ef4) — 7/31/2008 @ 6:49 pmObama also used the same language during his speech in Germany. “I know that I don’t look like the Americans who’ve previously spoken in this great city.”
Which was obviously a reference to race. It was widely interpreted as such, and of course no effort to correct the record was ever made by the Obama camp.
aaron (f44005) — 7/31/2008 @ 6:50 pmThis is absolute nonsense. If that ad is racist in any way, I’ll eat my boots. Nice, leather ones, too.
That’s some of the most ridiculous stuff I’ve yet heard this campaign. But I shouldn’t be surprised. Obama damaged Hillary the same way he’s now going after McCain. Race-baiter-baiting!
Joe M. (150efa) — 7/31/2008 @ 6:51 pm“other presidents” ??!?
It’s too bad for Obama I’m a post-racial voter. He seems to be looking for the other kind.
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 7/31/2008 @ 7:18 pmWe’re sorry, but we have to admit that we are so-o-o-ooooooooooooooo last year, or probably beyond. Saying that hurts our publicists as much as ourselves, but our whatever-court programs require honesty.
Britney and Paris (d11f9a) — 7/31/2008 @ 7:37 pmSo why would McCain’s handlers choose us if they want to make it look like Obama is simply famous for being famous? We fell way down that list before this election. We even come after that pay-to-play slut who bumped her uglies with Eliot Spitzer, socks and all.
Either McCain campaign funds are being stupidly spent on some guys who rode the short bus to school, or-rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, they’re brilllllyunt and really know how image is everything — meaning us, the two blonde white chix everybody wants to get with, and you know how.
Like our hero Marilyn Monroe said, back before MTV and before we were born, when she was asked about being a sex symbol: “Gee, aren’t cymbals what you clash together to make noise?”
Gee, do you think McCain would get us tickets for front row seats when he decides to take on Obama, mano-a-girly-mano, on substantive issues? We mean, like, talking about taxes in ways other than telling a six-year-old girl on camera, after hesitation, that he would never raise her taxes (stock uptick for sidewalk lemonade stands), or telling that older Greek TV guy, George Stopalottathis, that everything about taxes is on the table?
You notice how the NY Times always seem to think, everything is expressed as ‘codewords’; race, sex, et al. Not actual issues, now if we were to post pictures of Obama supporters like Scarlett Johanssen, (I know she’s under the bus) Kate Walsh, Olivia Wilde, the whole female half
narciso (c36902) — 7/31/2008 @ 7:44 pmof Gossip Girls might make that point more
explicitly; and keep Michelle up at night more often. The Britney/Paris ad is just the lightest touch, and he’s already outraged. Let’s post the commentary of pictures of his other sterling recommendations, from Hamas political director Ahmed Youssef, Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, that gentleman on death row, Code Pink’s Jodie Evans
(with footage of their picketing Walter Reed.
Obama and surrogates sure know how to have a national conversation on race.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/31/2008 @ 7:48 pmAll Obama has to do is accept the invitation.
So far, he hasn’t. Why is that?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/31/2008 @ 7:58 pmGee, it gets more racy! (Did I just play the race card?)
love2008 (c7c069) — 7/31/2008 @ 8:01 pmHarold Ford. Oh, yeah, the guy from the Memphis corruptocrat family of politicians. He got all huffy and called us racists when his opponent pointed out his propensity for hanging out with playboy bunnies. I actually didn’t care if a single guy wanted to party with Hef, but I kind of resented being called a racist and voted for the RINO Corker, and I kind of resent it again, and I’ll probably vote for the RINO McCain.
brobin (c07c20) — 7/31/2008 @ 8:02 pmPersonally, I wouldn’t screw either Brittany or Paris with JD’s dick, sorry girls, so I don’t understand all the big deal about miscegenation. Are people implying Obama is a skank hunter as well as an empty suit?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/31/2008 @ 8:28 pmNot to worry about Obama and white chicks. Muslims are strick about sex outside of marrage.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (e18128) — 7/31/2008 @ 8:31 pm#15 really? What about with camels, goats and young boys or is that just the same rationalization the ancient Greeks took?
And Yassir Arafish really the father of his wife’s child? How many really young boy toys did adored-by-many-on-the-left Arafat sodomize?
#14 there have been rumors about “more than friendly relations” between Urkel and his church’s male parishioners/staff. But then if the NY Times won’t comment it cannot be true. Ditto for Hillary being gay or having an affair with Vince Foster when Bill was out of Little Rock. Even skanks like Janet Reno have a well-deserved rep for wild partying with fellow dykes.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 7/31/2008 @ 8:46 pmmax – Those rumors about Urkel and his parishoners/staff have never definitively proven to be false. See the Mary Mapes standard for election related news adopted by the liberal media in 2004.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/31/2008 @ 8:57 pmOr not true, whatever.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/31/2008 @ 8:58 pmThis bus is losing its wheels. Seriously. Ho’s advisers should program his data card to spew race about 1/2 as much as it is now. He typifies ‘famous for being famous.’ Not a real brain teaser there.
Will Obama go back to teaching?
Maybe Oprah will give him his own afternoon talk show. Or he could be like Sean Combs and do Broadway with Raisin in the Sun. A clothing line or mens cologne would be nice.
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/31/2008 @ 9:09 pmI don’t think being born black, counts as playing- the-race card.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/31/2008 @ 9:12 pmwith the multiple rationalizations about why Obama cancelled the trip to Landstuhl Hospital.
By multiple rationalizations I guess you mean the lies unleashed by the Grandpappy McCain Talking Ourselves Straight to Hell Express?
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/31/2008 @ 9:19 pmGood, Peter! You’re getting to where everyone else started out from.
Now, what’s next?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/31/2008 @ 9:19 pm“I don’t think being born black, counts as playing- the-race card.”
Falsely citing it as a reason the opposing campaign is scaring people away from voting for you is though, Peter. Could you try to be a little less obtuse?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/31/2008 @ 9:21 pmNo, I mean the multiple stories being unleashed by Obama’s own camp.
As to whether or not they were lying when they offered those rationalizations, I leave that for the sycophants to explain away.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/31/2008 @ 9:22 pmThat’s like asking Michael Moore to be a little less obese.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/31/2008 @ 9:22 pmYes, because the opposing campaign and party has a sterling record of exemplary civility in politics and would never, ever, ever stoop to a thing like that.
Reminds me of the story about the Scorpion and the frog…
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/31/2008 @ 9:37 pmOr asking Drumwaster to be a little more truthful.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/31/2008 @ 9:38 pm“Yes, because the opposing campaign and party has a sterling record of exemplary civility in politics and would never, ever, ever stoop to a thing like that.”
Peter – Can you point to a few examples of where McCain has played the race card please to back up your statement. Otherwise STFU with your lies. Your ass has been kicked upside down and sideways here day after day yet you keep coming back with more false information, debunked talking points and lies. The only reasons I can think of are that you are a masochist, sheer ignorance, or that somebody is paying you to be here. Which is it?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/31/2008 @ 9:54 pmPeter just stop hurting these people’s feelings. Stop! Cant you see you are ruining everything? Stop. Obama is a racist! See?
love2008 (c7c069) — 7/31/2008 @ 10:02 pmWe’ve already proven Petey to be a Democratic operative, by his own statements and the logic he is using. And I had proven in this thread Peter is a liar.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/31/2008 @ 10:03 pmLovey – Wait, isn’t the false default position you can’t be a racist if you’re black?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/31/2008 @ 10:04 pmMcCain is the greatest! Vote for John Mccain. vote for Change! He is so perfect and will never stoop so low as to launch a negative Ad against Barack Hussein Obama. He is new, fresh, good looking and has a hot wife. He is what America needs now. Change!( How am I doing, guys?)
love2008 (c7c069) — 7/31/2008 @ 10:10 pmDrum and Lovey – It’s been proven many times over on this blog that Peter is a liar. He is not here in good faith, but that’s nothing new for progressive trolls. Only the best and brightest support Obama. Heh.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/31/2008 @ 10:10 pmLovey – You sound like the Obamabot you are, that’s how you’re doing.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/31/2008 @ 10:12 pmLovey – how is pointing out that Obama has spent more than half of his time in the various offices to which he has been elected looking for a promotion considered a “negative ad”? How is pointing out that Barak is famous for no other reason than being famous considered a negative ad (Andrea Mitchell’s “celebrity is a dirty word” argument notwithstanding)?
Ignoring all of your “feelings”, what positive accomplishments has Obama actually managed to pull off on his own? Be specific.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/31/2008 @ 10:17 pm#31
love2008 (c7c069) — 7/31/2008 @ 10:17 pmYes Daley. And Obama is not black enough. That makes him a half racist. No he is a double racist. He can swing on both sides, you see. Saying someone will use your race against you is offence-racism. Attacking-befor-you-are-attacked, racism. For that I therefore denounce him! Shame on you Barack Obama! (Wait…..never mind.)
Especially when the only one in the contest bringing up race is Obama. He used it against his opponents in the Chicago political machine. He used it when he was a college student. He used it against Bill and Hillary. He is using it against McCain, despite the fact that McCain never even mentions Obama ethnicity.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/31/2008 @ 10:23 pmPeter — the Dems ceded the high ground on race baiting with the James Byrd ad from the NAACP that they refused to condemn.
WLS (4ab682) — 7/31/2008 @ 10:29 pm#37
love2008 (c7c069) — 7/31/2008 @ 10:30 pmYou know the worrying irony about all those guys you mentioned this ( Offence-racism) was used on? They all lost! (OMG!) Is this the beginning of the end for John McCain?
Because he was the product of the Chicago machine. The people that he has expressed such contempt for (those God-and-gun-grabbers) are not controlled by Chicago, and they are starting to notice.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/31/2008 @ 10:36 pmExcept of course, Hillary ( and Bill) Clinton.
love2008 (c7c069) — 7/31/2008 @ 10:40 pm#32 Love2008
LOL!
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/31/2008 @ 10:46 pmHillary won the popular vote, remember? Just because she walked away from the race doesn’t mean that Obama beat her.
And given that Dems think “racism” is akin to “cannibalistic mother-raper”, is it any wonder that they will run away from anything that might cause people to think that they are racist in the slightest?
It works among the Democrats, but not among the sane Americans he has to win over. “You’re a racist if you don’t vote for the black man” sounds about as vapid as it looks.
And people are even more sick of the Clintons and her inEVITAbility than you claim that they are of Bush. Do you honestly think that Obama is the best that the Democrats have to offer?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/31/2008 @ 10:47 pmIn the light of this prevailing issue, I will suggest a new talking point. I will call it,
love2008 (c7c069) — 7/31/2008 @ 10:48 pmWHAT SCARES YOU MOST ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA?
1
2
3
4
5
#43
love2008 (c7c069) — 7/31/2008 @ 10:55 pmThe Democrats are very bad people. Trully evil. Why did they have to produce such a scary man that we don’t know. Bad people indeed them Democrats.
Why not just answer the question? What has Barry HO! done to show he has the requisite experience and personal integrity to show that he is worthy of sitting in the Oval Office?
Amazing how the only ones pushing this meme are those trying to defend him? We’re not scared of Barry. I personally hold him in derision, occasionally tending to contempt, but “scary” is not even close.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/31/2008 @ 10:59 pmI think Lovey has finally come off the rails. Was there a deleted death threat or wish that Lovey made last night?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/31/2008 @ 11:03 pm#46
love2008 (c7c069) — 7/31/2008 @ 11:05 pmWhat has Barry HO! done to show he has the requisite experience and personal integrity to show that he is worthy of sitting in the Oval Office?
Integrity. Mmmmmm…let’s see. He is married to one wife whom he has not cheated on or left for another hottie. He also has a nice family. Nice kids. That says a lot to me.
“Hillary won the popular vote, remember? Just because she walked away from the race doesn’t mean that Obama beat her.”
Drum – Hillary hasn’t released her delegates and the convention hasn’t happened yet. There is still plenty of time for Obama to keep screwing this up and cause superdelegates to rethink their positions. It should be fun in Denver.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/31/2008 @ 11:07 pmSo have I. So have millions of others. That isn’t what I would call either requisite experience or personal integrity for the Oval Office.
Glad to know that marital fidelity has suddenly become so important for Democrats and their candidates, though. Now if we could just cause them to give up their support for mass infanticide.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/31/2008 @ 11:10 pmIntegrity.
Absolutely Lovey – He never lies about his prior positions or statements, even if the evidence is on tape or in print directly contradicting him. Supreme integrity or audacity, you decide.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/31/2008 @ 11:11 pm#50
love2008 (c7c069) — 7/31/2008 @ 11:17 pmSo have I. So have millions of others. That isn’t what I would call either requisite experience or personal integrity for the Oval Office.
So have millions of other Americans. Except for, you know, him……you know who…( Don’t make me call names here.)
#51
love2008 (c7c069) — 7/31/2008 @ 11:21 pmAbsolutely Lovey – He never lies about his prior positions or statements, even if the evidence is on tape or in print directly contradicting him. Supreme integrity or audacity, you decide.
That is called “Politics” Daley. Ask John McCain about that. He’s done his own shifting of positions too. Get used to it!
#49
love2008 (c7c069) — 7/31/2008 @ 11:36 pmHillary won the popular vote, remember? Just because she walked away from the race doesn’t mean that Obama beat her.
It is divisive talk like this that make Reps appear desperate and funny.
Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Period. The primaries is about delegates and Obama got the requisite delegates to clinch the nomination.
As for the popular vote argument, pure nonsense! By what verifiable proof are you making that argument? Hillary Clinton did not just “walk away”, she was beaten and knocked off the race by a more formidable and intelligent opponent: Barack Obama.
Face it folks, the guy is a winner. And that is really scary!
mass infanticide?
TLove (b8e7b4) — 8/1/2008 @ 12:05 amAnother challenge for any Beltway-watcher is to find someone on Capitol Hill that is LESS qualified than Barack Obama. For all their faults & thievery, which are legion, most of them have at some point actually held a job where there was some specific mission assigned to them (rather than just “organizing”), and many of them actually ran businesses — even small ones — where the success of the business depended on their leadership and responsibility.
Try to find someone who has never even held a regular job, never worked for a law firm anyone ever heard of, never served in uniform, and never earned a single dollar that didn’t come from taxpayers or donors.
Truly the bottom of the barrel.
Master Sgt (Ret) (c65ae1) — 8/1/2008 @ 12:49 amlove2008 wrote: Face it folks, the guy is a winner. And that is really scary!
L.N. Smithee (ef90eb) — 8/1/2008 @ 1:31 amAha! Some of that patented Barackian arrogance is kicking in. He ain’t won jack yet. Ask President Dewey.
love2008 wrote: Integrity. Mmmmmm…let’s see. He is married to one wife whom he has not cheated on or left for another hottie. He also has a nice family. Nice kids. That says a lot to me.
If that’s all that counts, it sounds like a reason to have voted for George W. Bush in 2000, no?
L.N. Smithee (ef90eb) — 8/1/2008 @ 1:36 amNo, he didn’t.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/1/2008 @ 1:44 ammass infanticide=abortion
Hazy (c36902) — 8/1/2008 @ 3:31 amI personally think the “Celeb” ad was poorly-conceived. Using footage of Britney and Paris alongside Obama is ridiculous because whatever Obama truly is, he is not as vacuous as either of those two bimbos, and anybody who thinks he is will already vote for McCain anyway. I thought it would have been more effective if they had used Elvis or Michael Jackson impersonators to illustrate the idea that it’s fine to scream, shout and faint for rock stars, but you would have to be a fool to want a rock star to run your country.
The reaction from the Wacko Barackos absolutely stunned me — while the words from Obama’s lips resurrecting his earlier nonsense about “I look different” wasn’t a surprise, I didn’t expect the usual suck-up-spects in the MSM and the blogosphere to reach back like Plastic Man to the Harold Ford crapola!
The strategy of the RNC attack spot on Ford was to separate him from Republican Bob Corker, who was put into play by Ford’s shift to the right. I just took a look at one of the YouTube postings of the anti-Ford ad, and what one critic wrote is typical of the leftist mentality on such matters:
The script of the spot was based on Ford’s statements, positions, donations, and personal life, and actors were used to facetiously agree with them. One of those things was his presence at Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Mansion in Los Angeles for a Super Bowl party. Now, when you think of parties at Hef’s, you think of Playboy centerfolds. And when you think of Playboy centerfolds, you think WHITE WOMEN. Would it make sense to highlight Ford’s attendance at a Playboy party using an actress that wasn’t white (as if the libs wouldn’t have been outraged if a black actress had been used)?
James Taranto of WSJ.com’s Best of The Web Today has a great take on the hysteria:
The wailing of Marshall, Press, and the Times might have held water longer than a sieve if the ad portrayed Obama doing or saying something inappropriate with Brit or Paris. But it doesn’t. If anything, this shows the necessity of diversity in editorial boardrooms; perhaps if Marshall or Press KNEW some conservatives, they wouldn’t leap to the conclusion that they are wetting their pants and loading their shotguns at the idea that a black man and a white woman might get it on.
Anyway, I am amazed at the way this is playing out. The “Celeb” ad is chickenschtuff, but the Obamaniacs made it into chicken salad…and ate it. Bon Appetit!
L.N. Smithee (ef90eb) — 8/1/2008 @ 3:44 amSince the Obama campaign would die of old age waiting for someone from the McCain campaign to ACTUALLY make a racist comment, they had to rely upon one of their minions in the radical left MSM to get the narrative going. Mark my words, from here on out the MSM will constantly refer back “to that time McCain went radically negative and pulled race into the campaign”. I still can’t believe NOBODY has accused Obama of being racist for his constant insinuations that racism must be the motivation behind McCain campaign tactics and the many Americans who don’t want to vote for him. If a white candidate suggested on a regular basis that blacks were not going to vote for him because he is white (thus assuming a racist motivation on the part of most blacks) there would be all hell to pay. The NYT puts out a lot of crap, but this ranks up there among the worst in my opinion. Outright lies and slander against McCain. Disgusting! I hope the conservative blogs (not to mention the McCain campaign) go nuts over this. If anything warrants it, this does.
Cory (c2ce18) — 8/1/2008 @ 4:28 am#58
love2008 (c7c069) — 8/1/2008 @ 4:49 amIf that’s all that counts, it sounds like a reason to have voted for George W. Bush in 2000, no?
Correct me if I am wrong, Smithee but wasn’t “restoring moral” integrity to the white house one of the platforms Bush ran on in 2000, in the heels of the Monika Lewinsky scandal? It meant a lot to the Reps then. But now, it means nothing. Double standard, no?
Make no mistake about, faithfulness to your spouse is a major yardstick for jugding a person’s integrity.
But honestly, do you people actually think there is no iota of truth in Obama’s words? It would be hypocritical to assert that. Yes there are going to be people who will use his race against him in this race. There has and there will always be. Notice he did not mention John McCain nor his campaign. (I wonder why they are freaking out on it when they were not mentioned). Yes there are white people who still habour some element of xenophobic feelings about voting for a black President and yes there will be people who will want to play upon those fears and get those white people not to vote for him. It’s there! What he has done is to dispel those fears by exposing it. Why are you mad about it? The only person who should be mad about it is the one who is guilty of it. He simply confronted an issue that could be an achilles heel to his campaign. I summarize it thus:
love2008 (c7c069) — 8/1/2008 @ 5:12 am(1) Barack Obama is a black man.
(2) He has a funny, African name.
(3) There are white folks who still habour some little reservations about voting for a black president.
(4) There are dark elements out there who will take advantage of that and play on those fears.
(5) Obama is not a fool. He is aware of that.
(6) He has simply called attention to it, to expose these elements.
(7) He never mentioned John McCain, nor his campaign.
#54.
The Primaries are about delegates. That’s correct.
So, when Bush won the electoral college while Gore won the popular vote, you were OK with that?
And, you’ll be OK with McCain winning the electoral college but losing the popular vote as well?
headhunt23 (9e1243) — 8/1/2008 @ 6:02 am7) He never mentioned John McCain, nor his campaign.
Lovey – On the 30th he specifically mentioned McCain. Why don’t you actually review the information you brainwashed Obamatard, which is why his words were so offensive.
@53 McCain does admit he changes positions and explains why. I used the word “lies,” which is what Obama does by denying he ever held another position or said anything else in spite of direct evidence to the contrary. Don’t tell me words don’t matter.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/1/2008 @ 6:06 amNo, I don’t, and I don’t believe that the Democrats do, either. Their goal is to win elections, not to lose them and blame it all on someone else’s racism. If the Dems did not think a black man could win, they wouldn’t have nominated one. It’s really that simple.
Xrlq (b71926) — 8/1/2008 @ 6:29 am#65
love2008 (c7c069) — 8/1/2008 @ 6:32 amAnd, you’ll be OK with McCain winning the electoral college but losing the popular vote as well?
Of course, if that’s what the rule says. Glad to see you are conceding the popular vote to Obama.
#66 Daleyrocks.
love2008 (c7c069) — 8/1/2008 @ 6:38 amLovey – On the 30th he specifically mentioned McCain.
I am sorry I must have missed that Daley. Care to provide a link to prove it?
Don’t tell me words don’t matter.
I denounce you Daley for your plagiarism. Shame on you Daleyrocks! 🙂
Because the popular vote is no more relevant in a Presidential election than is the number of first downs achieved in a football game. It’s the final score that matters. (He can win those Blue State strongholds by millions of votes, but unless and until he convinces that “god-and-gun-grabbers” to vote for him, he will be no more likely to become President than was Je$$e.)
But it’s interesting that you have no problem with disenfranchising the Democratic voters of two entire States in order to arrive at a decision that had been predetermined by party officials. Selected, not elected, right?
And, once again, you don’t find it even remotely problematic that there are an even higher percentage of blacks here in the US who have no trouble at all admitting that they are voting for Obama specifically because he is allegedly a black man. (Better than 90% according to most polls.)
Not voting for him based on skin color = racism
Voting for him based on skin color = Hunki-dori
Is that about it?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/1/2008 @ 6:51 amObama and white women .. “racially tinged” .. this is scandalous.
Neo (cba5df) — 8/1/2008 @ 7:17 am“I am sorry I must have missed that Daley. Care to provide a link to prove it?”
Lovey – The easiest thing to do is follow the link in DRJ’s piece on Hardball immediately above this one.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/1/2008 @ 7:20 amI wonder if love1008 was saying the same thing 7 years ago? The irony is delicious!
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 8/1/2008 @ 7:29 amSorry, should have read the entire thread before posting.
Surely you already knew this. 😎
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 8/1/2008 @ 7:38 amLovey – The easiest thing to do is follow the link in DRJ’s piece on Hardball immediately above this one.
Or the one on the Jake Tapper story by DRJ. Lovet, you have really lost it when you can’t even follow the basic story.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/1/2008 @ 7:42 am#73
love2008 (c7c069) — 8/1/2008 @ 7:47 am7 years ago, I was a Republican who was tired of the status quo and needed CHANGE, Curtis. 😉
So that’s what’s wrong with you.
Icy Truth (64b9c8) — 8/1/2008 @ 7:49 am#75
love2008 (c7c069) — 8/1/2008 @ 7:57 amDaley, I have looked at that speech and still cant find where he mentioned John McCain specifically in that statement. He said “they..” Here is a quote:
“Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me,” Obama said. “You know, he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name, you know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”
John McCain was not mentioned.
then followed a mere 12 words later by the word they’re.
How does that not refer to McCain, and Bush? When I first read it, I thought he was referring to the Florida Marlins, but upon closer inspection, he is clearly referencing the exact people he referenced.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:01 amSo who do you suppose he was talking about? Ralph Nader?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:03 amFunny, I had the exact same thought, except I thought he was talking about the former Soviet Army.
😉
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:05 am“… you know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”
Truer words were never spoken. He is no George Washington. No Thomas Jefferson. No Abraham Lincoln. No Andrew Jackson. No Ulysses S. Grant.
Dafydd ab Hugh has more.
nk (c1e92f) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:11 amI thought Dubya was supposed to be the uneducated one, even if he’s the only POTUS with an MBA.
It’s doubtful that Urkel can parse words like William Clinton. Perhaps he was referring to word NOBODY? As in Nobody……is going to try to make you scared of me.
As a Chicago pol with oodles of corruptocrat connections, someone must have really thought Barry Hussein was worthy of sponsorship to higher office. Why are dead people allowed to vote over and over in places like Chitown and Philly? Is the Justice Dept. that inept or corrupt itself to stand idly by and allow this illegality to fester?
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:17 amLovey – You must be right. That text you imported was from two different speeches so the first sentence was completely unrelated to the second. I now see that it makes all the difference in the world. I apologize for my boneheaded error.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:19 amGeez, Lovey, I don’t see it in the Tapper piece either:
“”John McCain right now, he’s spending an awful lot of time talking about me,” Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said today in Rolla, Mo. “You notice that? I haven’t seen an ad yet where he talks about what he’s gonna do. And the reason is because those folks know they don’t have any good answers, they know they’ve had their turn over the last eight years and made a mess of things. They know that you’re not real happy with them.”
Obama continued: “And so the only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me. So what they’re saying is, ‘Well, we know we’re not very good but you can’t risk electing Obama. You know, he’s new, he’s… doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, you know, he’s got a, he’s got a funny name.’ ”
What was I thinking?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:25 amI dined with liberals last night. I was good for once. I listened and did not talk. To them, this part of his speech meant that he would be on a “dollar bill” some day. I insist that it’s mostly intended to get those high notes from the choir.
nk (c1e92f) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:27 am“… you know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”
Those ears ! There is nobody on any bill with ears the size of Baracky. That is a fact.
Maybe they’re refers to the Dubuque, IA Kiwanis Club? The Rotary Club of Rapid City, SD? The Toastmasters of Terre Haute, IN? The San Diego Chargers? The PGA Tour?
How could anyone in their right mind see this as referencing anyone other than Bush and McCain, the people he specifically referenced a mere 12 words prior.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:27 amJD – I think I’ve seen Obama on a three dollar bill somewhere recently.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:35 amHugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, ImaDamnNutJob, Moamar Qadaffi and some of his other coveted foreign endorsers have also put him on their currency according to reliable sources.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:38 am#84
love2008 (c7c069) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:42 amApology accepted.
#79
And JD you are the “racist”! 😉
And to you all, that does not prove he was talking about John McCain or he would have used the pronoun “he” and not “they” to refer to him.
Washington is the only president on a dollar bill. Lincoln, Jackson and Grant are on other bills.
Obama is different from these presidents in two respects: He is not a president and he has little comparable experience.
Well, his representative said Obama meant nothing racist with his dollar bill comment.
davod (5bdbd3) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:48 amEarly on, Obama played possum, presenting himself as the post-racial candidate. But as soon as the opportunity presented itself, in the form of the Reverend Wright controversy, he flipped. From the Philadelphia speech through to the current day he will not shut the fuck up about race. And his aides have the temerity to suggest that McCain is the one playing the race card? Alleging that because two white girls are in the ad that it suggests something sexual about Obama and white women? This is truly pathetic! What spin would they have come up with if the ad had shown two black celebrities? Answer: They would have condemned the entire ad as racist against every person shown. Paris and Britney were chosen because of their combination of extreme high profile and extreme lack of substance. If the McCain camp had dared to suggest that any black celebrity in the entertainment industry is lacking in substance, that in itself would be condemned as a racist statement; and then the association with Obama would draw a second slam.
Are you paying attention, Peter? That’s the representatives your side: race-card playing liars and scumbags. The same people who openly accuse the Republicans of playing on the public’s fear of Islamic terror are now accusing “John McCain and the Republicans” (to quote the words of the Messiah) of doing something that they have not done AT ALL! John McCain questioning Obama’s readiness to lead is giving voice to an opinion that many voters have; Obama telling his supporters that the official John McCain for President committee and the official Republican National Committee are going to (if they haven’t already begun to) engage in racist fear-mongering is an outright misstatement of fact, otherwise known as a boldface lie. He has no proof that this is going to happen; that a minority of piece-of-shit right wing bloggers will engage in that stupidity is a given, just as an equal number of left wing bloggers will continue to spew the “McCain called his wife the c-word,” line, amongst other bullshit.
The difference? McCain will never talk about the smears against him, except for those launched directly (whether from his own lips or in the form of “I approved this message”) by the other candidate himself. Obama is launching a preemptive strike against the smears that he feels are sure to come — but what if they never come? Then he will have mischaracterized, and displayed the most infinitesimal of regard for, his worthy and honorable opponent. The arrogance! The absolute and total arrogance of stating as casually as if it is common knowledge that the official campaign of his opponent will play on the public’s supposed fear of black people and people with Muslim-sounding names. And how little faith he shows in that public that he feels the need to quell those fears that he seems to think are bubbling just under the surface of their personalities and their psyches. He might just as well have said, “Hey, America. I know that y’all are easy to fool; so I’m here to warn ya not to be fooled by those nasty Republicans. And furthermore, I don’t want you to be fooled by the fact that they haven’t actually tried to fool you yet — ’cause it’s comin’. I promise. You’re a fool if you think it isn’t comin’.” And he knows his fools, because he feels in his heart that the majority of the American public are fools.
Or, as Obama’s professed hero — our 16th President — said: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” I wonder if Obama is making use of the wisdom in that statement in a way that would make The Great Emancipator proud?
Icy Truth (64b9c8) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:54 amHe was ALSO talking about Bush (which was why he used the word “and” between the names of Bush AND McCain. Twelve words later, he used “they”.
Who was the “they” he was referring to, if not McCain and Bush?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:58 amLovey, you’ve lost this issue. He specifically mentions Bush and McCain, and refers to “they” a mere dozen words later, in the very next sentence, with no intervening nouns to which the plural pronoun can refer. The context is clear, either spoken or in writing.
First Rule of Holes: When you find yourself at the bottom of one, STOP DIGGING.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:05 amWhy would anyone even suggest race in the dollar bill reference? There are other differences between Obama and those faces on those dollar bills. For example, they are all old, dead, PRESIDENTS.
love2008 (c7c069) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:07 amObama is not old (experienced and tested as a President), neither is he dead nor has he ever been President. May I add, neither is his name american-sounding. Why must you think he was refering to his color? Like JD would say, “Racists!”.
love2008 –
From Jake Tapper’s piece (unedited quote):
“John McCain right now, he’s spending an awful lot of time talking about me,” Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said today in Rolla, Mo. “You notice that? I haven’t seen an ad yet where he talks about what he’s gonna do. And the reason is because those folks know they don’t have any good answers, they know they’ve had their turn over the last eight years and made a mess of things. They know that you’re not real happy with them.”
Obama continued: “And so the only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me. So what they’re saying is, ‘Well, we know we’re not very good but you can’t risk electing Obama. You know, he’s new, he’s… doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, you know, he’s got a, he’s got a funny name.'”
— Another unedited quote from later in the piece:
Then in Union, Mo., this evening, Obama seemed to specifically accuse McCain and the GOP of peddling racism and xenophobia.
Obama said that “John McCain and the Republicans, they don’t have any new ideas, that’s why they’re spending all their time talking about me. I mean, you haven’t heard a positive thing out of that campaign in … in a month. All they do is try to run me down and you know, you know this in your own life. If somebody doesn’t have anything nice to say about anybody, that means they’ve got some problems of their own. So they know they’ve got no new ideas, they know they’re dredging up all the stale old stuff they’ve been peddling for the last eight, 10 years.
“But, since they don’t have any new ideas the only strategy they’ve got in this election is to try to scare you about me. They’re going to try to say that I’m a risky guy, they’re going to try to say, ‘Well, you know, he’s got a funny name and he doesn’t look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five dollar bills and, and they’re going to send out nasty emails.
— Here’s the link:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/did-obama-accus.html
— It’s the same one from DRJ’s Jake Tapper: “Did Obama Accuse McCain of Running a Racist, Xenophobic Campaign?” thread.
Icy Truth (64b9c8) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:08 amThey are not all Presidents. They are not all shown as old (in fact, almost none of them are).
And besides the obvious fact that all of our Founding Fathers are indeed dead, there is only one other common element between the men on our national currency.
So is Barry saying that McCain and Bush will make the American public afraid of him because he isn’t dead? Or because he doesn’t match up with that other common element?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:16 amIt wasn’t Mad TV that first tied Obama to ditzy celebutants — it was Obama himself, in 2005:
http://tinyurl.com/6p24d8
Pat R. (9828c0) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:17 amAbraham is a Jewish name, straight out of the Bible. Ulysses is Greek, as is Alexander. George is a British name, from long before there was an America, as was Thomas.
So that isn’t it, either.
Keep digging…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:19 amlove2008 wrote: Correct me if I am wrong, Smithee but wasn’t “restoring moral” integrity to the white house one of the platforms Bush ran on in 2000, in the heels of the Monika Lewinsky scandal? It meant a lot to the Reps then. But now, it means nothing. Double standard, no?
No.
I don’t remember the exact language used by the Bush 2000 campaign to address Bill Clinton’s soiling of the Oval Office, but I am certain that it was not “restoring moral integrity.” I am sure they found a way without going into sordid detail.
It’s dishonest to suggest that marital fidelity throughout a marriage was a “platform” of the campaign. Unfortunately, that ship may have sailed — in the future, the nation may have to settle for someone who isn’t carrying on an affair while he’s running for President, as did Gary Hart (definitely), John Edwards, and Bill Clinton (“allegedly”).
L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:25 amLove2008, have you not been paying attention? You seem to be asking questions on stuff that is already been clearly pointed out in this blog.
G (722480) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:25 amWhen Obama says things like,
“And so the only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me.”
…it again reminds me how little backbone and discernment he beleives the American voter has, and that we are that easily influenced. And I think he’s counting on that belief, too…hope and change, hope and change….
Dana (b4a26c) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:27 amlove, Drumwaster, et al –
Hopefully the repetition contained in my last post will make it clear once and for all: when Obama says “they”, he is specifically referring to “John McCain and the Republicans”. He immediately groups them together as “they” in that first sentence (“John McCain and the Republicans, they don’t have any new ideas”). He does the exact same thing in the first quote, when he mentions McCain in the first sentence and then groups him together with the GOP as “those folks” in the sentence where he ‘explains’ why McCain’s ads sound the way they do.
He uses the pronoun “they” for two reasons: 1) He feels it necessary to link “the Maverick” to his party, the party of the current administration. How do you usurp power from the party in charge? By demonizing the entire party, not just its candidate. 2) If you keep mentioning your opponent by name all the time you end up planting his name into the minds of the people you are speaking to, instead of your own. You also come off as someone who dwells on tearing down your opponent (something McCain has to be cautious of as well) rather than building yourself up in America’s eyes.
Icy Truth (64b9c8) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:28 amYou’re grasping at straws, Love. Your man screwed up. Admit it.
L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:30 amDidn’t John Kerry get divorced??? I’m glad marriage is so important to democrats though.
Especially when they bring it up on John McCain, whose marriage ended what, 30 years ago? Yeah… Mr. McCain sure seems to have his marriage problems, with all the cheating, lying and ect…
G (722480) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:32 amOh, I know, Icy. I’m agreeing with you and using your example in trying to get Lovey to see the truth.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:32 amI don’t get it. Wasn’t the exact quote:
‘Well, you know, he’s got a funny name and he doesn’t look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five dollar bills and, and they’re going to send out nasty emails.
How this could be construed to refer to the years of experience or other such baloney is really mind-boggling. He was referring to looks. And coming right after the comment on the funny name, he was talking about xenophobia and racism.
It’s so obvious I’m embarrassed to type this. Why are the Dems defending Obama the racist on this? *shakes head in utter frustration* Support him if you like. Just admit he made a huge gaffe and move on.
no one you know (1f5ddb) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:42 am“Why would anyone even suggest race in the dollar bill reference? There are other differences between Obama and those faces on those dollar bills. For example, they are all old, dead, PRESIDENTS.
Obama is not old (experienced and tested as a President), neither is he dead nor has he ever been President. May I add, neither is his name american-sounding. Why must you think he was refering to his color?
A) Who’s on the ten and the hundred again? Just asking.
Minister Jack X Klompus el Shabazz (cf3660) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:44 amB) This is the most pathetic, giant steam-shovel sized dig in an already huge hole I’ve ever read.
Didn’t John Kerry get divorced???
Yup, he was a gigolo who traded up for money.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:44 amAh, after reading up on John Kerry’s first wife, it seems she died, in 2006 from cancer, which is very sad.
G (722480) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:44 am108, couldn’t the same be said for McCain?
G (722480) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:48 amAnd TahRaysuh Heinz Kerry was widow of Pa. Republican Sen. John Heinz who died in a plane crash. I see what he saw in them, being they were heiresses, but what does he bring to the tablke, other than being a pompous windbag who accomplished just WHAT in the Senate?
#107 Klompus al Shabazz-
and just who is on the ten thousand dollar federal reserve note? Is it Salmon P. Chase or is that the 100k bill used between reserve banks?
As a kid in Vegas in the 50s, I recall one strip club had a big horseshoe with 100 ten thousand dollar bills under glass at Joe E. Brown’s Horseshoe Club.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:52 am#62, 92
Good posts. This preposterous post-race candidate is now the poster boy for the dirtiest of campagn tactics. People like love2008 are infuriating not in their support of this loon, but in their refusal to update their info on the guy. You can only find a couple or so people who say, yes, that podium prop was a mistake. Then followed by the typical Daley machine spin: it was only meant for use at one event! Bull. Shit.
#62:
This cretin is welcome to run on a far-left Socialist ticket (which he’s flipped away from anyway)… But the nonsense of being a post-race candidate is proving to be some of the dirtiest campaigning we’ve ever seen. What anyone sees as brilliant in this shaman is simply ruthless and calculating desperate behavior.
TO ANY BHO SUPPORTER: clarify why Obama is pulling the most racist campaign tactics we’ve ever seen. If not, explain why these recent claims have any merit. It’s all diversionary tactics, IMO.
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:58 am..crickets..
Was she rich when they got married?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:58 amdaleyrocks wrote: Yup, [Kerry] was a gigolo who traded up for money.
I don’t think that’s quite fair. Teh-RAY-zuh was a rich girl who married a millionaire Senator two years her junior. Kerry was a Senator and a divorcee of a million-heiress. She had money, and needed the power. He had power, and needed the money.
They found each other. It was a match made in…somewhere.
L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf) — 8/1/2008 @ 10:02 am113. -I don’t know
G (722480) — 8/1/2008 @ 10:04 am112. I just get so annoyed at how his supporters tout him as such a towering intellect when he consistently reveals his ignorance of so many basic aspects of American history, geography, military strategy, economics, etc. The only thing the guy seems to know inside and out is politics, dirty cut-throat politics.
Minister Jack X Klompus el Shabazz (cf3660) — 8/1/2008 @ 10:04 amCould you imagine the field day the press and the entertainment industry would have with any single one of this guy’s gaffes if they were committed by Bush or McCain? For a Columbia / Harvard graduate he doesn’t strike me as even remotely intellectually curious or as well-informed and “deep” as his acolytes seem to regard him.
Well, G, I think that might be somewhat important when making the claim that McCain married just for money, wouldn’t you think?
OTOH, if he married for love, what does it matter how much money she had then or has now? My wife and I are much better off together now than we were before we met. Does that mean we married for money?
I’m not saying you are asserting such things, just pointing out the errors in the claim.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/1/2008 @ 10:08 amChase is on the $10K bill;
Another Drew (8018ee) — 8/1/2008 @ 10:09 amWilson is on the $100K bill.
…thanks to the Head-Lizard…
Mmm….Salmon Chase. Good with capers on top.
Minister Jack X Klompus el Shabazz (cf3660) — 8/1/2008 @ 10:10 amAh, yes, “Salmon”. A fine American name…
Jeez, lovey, it’s not like the guy is named Che Voldemort Obama…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/1/2008 @ 10:10 amAnd, other than some saddle-bum on “Lonesome Dove”, who else is named “Woodrow”?
Another Drew (8018ee) — 8/1/2008 @ 10:24 amMister Jack – I’ve said here before that Obama is simply the latest in a line of very stupid Harvard Law Review members that I’ve come across in my career.
I’ve dealt with many brilliant Harvard Law Review members as well, but probably among the worst lawyers I have ever worked with was a person who was Phi Beta Kappa at Harvard College, and a member of Harvard Law Review in law school. Put that person in library and give him/her unlimited time in the library to answer a question, and you’d get a great piece of work. Ask that same person to engage in legally analysis off the top of his/her head, or watch him/her perform in a courtroom and it simply made you want to stab your eyes out with a fork.
Put Obama in a classroom where there isn’t an bit of pressure to perform in any substantive fashion — or in the Senate for that matter — and he appears to be an impressive guy.
Ask him to step outside his comfort zone — something like run for election outside the confines of Hyde Park and its 90% liberal residents — and he’s adrift at sea.
wls (4ab682) — 8/1/2008 @ 10:25 amAnd we won’t even TOUCH the subject of fidelity and President Clinton…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 8/1/2008 @ 10:29 am#116,
By no means is he intellectually curious. His syllabus and teachings from U of Chicago show that he was open to dialogue and that’s as far as it goes. His Chicago handlers have him programmed for one role, to weaken America and strengthen growing powers… China, India and other gaining countries.
The depressing part is, this attracts the youth vote and the fawning aca-media support. (As for the BDS diaper shitters, they still don’t know Bush isn’t running… it would take away all their fun.)
Clueless in numbers: His younger voters don’t know, don’t care, think it’s all boring… it’s old and it has no relevancy in their lives. They should at least zoom in on the fact that Ho is NOT for helping the less fortunate as a whole, and he’s not a friend of minorities. If he were, he would’ve defended women and not ralroaded Clinton in such a shabby sexst manner. He’s programmed to push the ‘black agenda’ which is why he’s got the good blacks / guilty whites all sewn up. Pathetic.
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 8/1/2008 @ 10:29 am^ Sexist.
Yes, Obama has been sexist. His other flaws are just so stunning and remarkable, you have to pick & choose your hysteria. The worst candidate to ever disgrace the national political process.
Wouldn’t you rather vote for the men in the IL State Senate from whom Barry stole, just to beef up his resume?
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 8/1/2008 @ 10:38 amIsn’t that an ancient term meaning “line of trees”? 😉
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/1/2008 @ 10:39 amBTW… WLS has the best short version as to why Obama’s NYT syllabus coverage dazzled so many. (And it is a good read, whether you support or revile the guy.)
#122
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 8/1/2008 @ 10:43 am122. Oh I believe you 100%. I went to U of Penn and there were a thousand Barack Obamas who just had “out of my way I’m going to be king” personalities. They were such posturing phonies and social climbers within the confines of the ivy league. A prominent BMOC when I was a freshman was instrumental in bringing Louie Farrakhan to campus as he climbed his way up the NOI hierarchy. Later found out that he dropped his X and his Muhammad and became a Baptist minister after coincidentally studying under James Cone, Rev. Wright’s mentor. The line between Black Lib Theology and NOI is razor thin.
Minister Jack X Klompus el Shabazz (cf3660) — 8/1/2008 @ 10:49 am128, sounds like a suffocating environment.
Black theology has come so far that arrogance is now the official tone and voice. Look at Spike Lee’s comments and even a few posters here. Get whitey. Regular readers here have seen blastings at GWB, and on specific topics.
Oh, reminds me. Ho and his handlers banned the New Yorker from covering his recent fantasy tour. Yep. After printing that thought-provoking cover, their freedom of speech was handled directly by the King-in-Waiting. That team of journos was segregated right off the bus. *
*Or the jet. With the symbol of unity on the tail, O
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 8/1/2008 @ 11:36 amI’m going to have a piece up over the weekend on Black Liberation Theology and the Hawaiian Sovereingty Movement. They’ve got something in common now.
Intrigued?
WLS (4ab682) — 8/1/2008 @ 11:45 am129. The irony was how self-segregating so many of the black students at Penn were (The W.E.B. DuBois Colllege House dormitory, separate graduation, separate cafeteria tables, Greek systems that would not allow its pledges to talk to white people.) All the while the school in its official song-of-itself was so overbearing in its “celebrate diversity or else” party line bullshit.
Minister Jack X Klompus el Shabazz (cf3660) — 8/1/2008 @ 12:12 pmIntrigured? Let me guess, Baracky has thrown both of them under the back of the bus.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/1/2008 @ 12:25 pmMinister Jack wrote: For a Columbia / Harvard graduate he doesn’t strike me as even remotely intellectually curious or as well-informed and “deep” as his acolytes seem to regard him.
As Laugh-In‘s Arte Johnson used to say, this is verrrrry interesting. From the February 6, 1990 New York Times article “First Black Elected to Head Harvard’s Law Review” by reporter Fox Butterfield:
FWIW, the article goes on to say the first female President of the Review was nails-on-chalkboard-voiced pundit Susan Estrich. The first Chinese-American was Peter Yu, whom many liberals want to string up for his role in reviewing international law and treaties regarding aggressive interrogation for the Bush Administration.
L.N. Smithee (0931d2) — 8/1/2008 @ 12:29 pmI would like someone to ask Barack what were the last three interesting books that he’s read about history, current events, or public policy. As much as Bush is derided as an intellectual lightweight, it seemed like he was constantly reading and engaging the actual authors, e.g. Sharansky, Bernard Lewis. I wouldn’t be surprised if Barack hasn’t devoured a book since someone gave him a copy of What’s the Matter with Kansas?
Minister Jack X Klompus el Shabazz (cf3660) — 8/1/2008 @ 12:45 pm117. Never made a claim. just a question, it isn’t really an issue for me.
G (722480) — 8/1/2008 @ 12:48 pmMinister Jack wrote: I would like someone to ask Barack what were the last three interesting books that he’s read about history, current events, or public policy.
Ugh! That’s a GWB question. The MSM already knows BHO reads. As John Cougar Mellencamp said, “Ain’t no new news here.” (/sarcasm)
L.N. Smithee (0931d2) — 8/1/2008 @ 1:07 pmI would like Obama to be asked in one of the Presidential debates whether he thinks history will accord higher status in terms of Presidential accomplishment to Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan.
That would make for some interesting navel gazing.
WLS (26b1e5) — 8/1/2008 @ 1:40 pmFollow-up question, Senator: “And why?”
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/1/2008 @ 1:45 pmYou all are getting a little mixed up arent you, misquoting each other. You all need to get together and agree on one talking point and make your unified, Republican claims against Barack Obama. It’s getting confusing and desperate. You even stoop to the level of denigrating his academic accomplishments, even questioning what books he has read. You cant accept the fact that Obama is more literate than your candidates, both incumbent and aspiring. How low can you really go? Desperate, folks. Very desperate.
love2008 (c7c069) — 8/1/2008 @ 2:17 pm“You cant accept the fact that Obama is more literate than your candidates, both incumbent and aspiring.”
Minister Jack X Klompus el Shabazz (cf3660) — 8/1/2008 @ 2:21 pmAnd you continue your well-worn habit of throwing out broad, sweeping, baseless opinions and asserting them as facts.
#141
love2008 (c7c069) — 8/1/2008 @ 2:26 pmDisprove it Jack.
Lovey – We are not worthy of Obama as President of the U.S. He is way to good to be limited only to this country. He should be elected King of the World, 12th Imam, Simba the Lion King, Ruler of Heaven and Earth and All the Seas, and the Wee People Who Live in the Trunks of Trees. We cannot be typical white people and Americans here.
Barry O!!! Famous for being famous. Awesome for doing nothing! Lightworker to the World!
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/1/2008 @ 2:30 pmI believe the burden of proof is on you, lovey dovey. I gave my impressions, my opinions, based on my observations. You asserted an opinion as a hard cold fact. So the burden is on me to prove that Obama is not “more literate” than every single incumbent Republican (a party btw which I am NOT a member of, so they’re not “mine”) and Republican candidate? And this is supposed to be done using what methodology? Let’s go over this again. YOU asserted an OPINION as a FACT with not one iota of proof, evidence, or substantiation that this OPINION is indeed a FACT. So I have to prove that your opinion is NOT a fact???
Minister Jack X Klompus el Shabazz (cf3660) — 8/1/2008 @ 2:33 pmLovey – Does the campaign issue warnings to Obamatards not to operate cars, power tools, heavy equipment, etc., etc., when they are thinking about Obama due to the risk of injury to themselves and others. The glazed eye look, departure of all reason, and brain freeze certainly seems to be a common hazard for his supporters.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/1/2008 @ 2:42 pmlove2008 wrote: You cant accept the fact that Obama is more literate than your candidates, both incumbent and aspiring. How low can you really go? Desperate, folks.
Yeah! I bet you’re Hannah Montana fans, too! Avril Lavigne RULES! 😛
L.N. Smithee (0931d2) — 8/1/2008 @ 2:46 pmlove2008 — the problem Republicans are having in sticking to one line of attack is the age-old “Maverick and Goose” problem:
Obama presents a target rich environment.
WLS (26b1e5) — 8/1/2008 @ 2:56 pmIf you noticed, that “opinion” was not directed at you. But if you are going to tear a man down, do so on the merits of proven facts. I think it is lame and desperate to stand and claim that Obama is an intellectual non-achiever. Your comment #135 is both mischievous, mis-informing and unfortunate.
love2008 (c7c069) — 8/1/2008 @ 2:57 pmLove2008 — I think that Obama is both an intellectual AND a non-achiever.
Academia is full of such people.
WLS (26b1e5) — 8/1/2008 @ 3:10 pmlove2008 wrote: I think it is lame and desperate to stand and claim that Obama is an intellectual non-achiever.
It’s hard to make a case that the guy is the genius some think he is when he rejects Economics 101 supply/demand logic and spits out that nonsense about inflating your tires.
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 8/1/2008 @ 3:17 pm#149
love2008 (c7c069) — 8/1/2008 @ 3:27 pmWell he has achieved something WLS. Wouldnt you say? He is the first black presidential nominee of a major party. The first. That is called making history. He also stands the chance of becoming the first black president of the USA. That is a great achievement! Something some people will never live to see in their lives. What is more, he is the hottest talking point everywhere. (Remind me who we are talking about…).
love2008 wrote: Well he has achieved something WLS. Wouldnt you say? He is the first black presidential nominee of a major party. The first. That is called making history. He also stands the chance of becoming the first black president of the USA. That is a great achievement! Something some people will never live to see in their lives. What is more, he is the hottest talking point everywhere. (Remind me who we are talking about…).
With a few alterations, the above paragraph could have been written about Halle Berry.
I don’t want her to be President, either — she’s a little nutty. However, I would accept her as a candidate for the Dr. Hfuhruhurr surgery.
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 8/1/2008 @ 3:42 pmAsshats of the world unite! Someone had to pick up Levi’s mantle of being a total horse’s ass/right asshole as my Irish moonbats say. Left now, I think perhaps BHO’s idiot basta*ds son is leading with all the nonsense he spews and obama sycophancy.
Wondering how many raving neomarxist heads will explode when barry o loses. Blame it on racism, diebold and BusHitler. Dems are doing a great job with that energy program also. Unlike Graf Gore windbag, scrawny Obama can soar in the skies with those Dumbo ears and the gas from all the fecal matter he’s full of. No word what task force Michelle O would head up. Perhaps racist redneck re-education classes would be de rigeur?
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/1/2008 @ 4:07 pm#153
love2008 (c7c069) — 8/1/2008 @ 4:26 pmExcuse me Maddy, are you refering to me as “BHO’s idiot basta*ds son”?
It’s okay, lovey, you can say it. “Bastard”. People like you have done everything possible to remove that particular social stigma, so be proud of the sobriquet.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/1/2008 @ 4:30 pmWell he has achieved something WLS. Wouldnt you say? He is the first black presidential nominee of a major party. The first. That is called making history. He also stands the chance of becoming the first black president of the USA. That is a great achievement!
So essentially the Democrats could have nominated literally any black guy and you would have considered it a counter to questions over whether he had accomplished anything or not.
Anon (db8e0c) — 8/1/2008 @ 5:33 pmBTW, I’ve met a bunch of Harvard Law grads and went to a top law school (though not Harvard).
The amount of people I met from either my law school or HLS who I’d classify as “intellectuals” is quite limited.
Anon (db8e0c) — 8/1/2008 @ 5:38 pm…sigh…
love2008 (c7c069) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:00 pmwell, love2008, that’s a compelling rebuttal.
Anon (db8e0c) — 8/2/2008 @ 1:14 amHe is the first black presidential nominee of a major party.
He isn’t even that yet, at least not until after the convention.
Evil Pundit (646727) — 8/2/2008 @ 2:49 amlove208 — don’t confuse activity with accomplishment.
WLS (4ab682) — 8/2/2008 @ 3:12 am#151 – love2008
He is the first black presidential nominee of a major party. The first. That is called making history.
— After McCain wins Obama will be “the first black presidential nominee of a major party — who lost”. That is called becoming a footnote in history.
He also stands the chance of becoming the first black president of the USA. That is a great achievement!
— Doing well in the polls after securing the nomination of a major party is a “great achievement”? Just how low were your expectations for him going into this thing?
Something some people will never live to see in their lives.
— As long as a qualified conservative black candidate comes along during the next 30-40 years, I promise you that I will live to see it.
What is more, he is the hottest talking point everywhere.
— Yeah! He’s popular AND he’s from Hawaii. . . . He’s a Hula-Hoop!
Icy Truth (b28aae) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:24 amHe is the first black presidential nominee of a major party.
He also stands the chance of becoming the first black president of the USA.
Lovey – There you go again, sigh, once again demonstrating that Obama’s achievements in your mind relate to him being born black.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:57 amJust like Paris and Britney are! Imagine that…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 8:12 amCynics. Go on. Knock yourselves out.
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/2/2008 @ 2:52 pmLovey – Open your good eye and try to evaluate you candidate impartially.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/2/2008 @ 3:09 pmHis achievement so far are
1) Running for office
2) BBB (Being Born Black) and
3) Endlessly talking about the second item in this list
Now how does that qualify him for the Presidency?
steve miller (eba841) — 8/2/2008 @ 3:17 pmYet another word that is being attempted as an insult by the left.
“You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means.”
We don’t believe the worst about your candidate. We just believe that he is a one-trick pony who has nothing more to offer than the color of his skin and his ability to read a teleprompter.
If you vote for him because of the color of his skin, you’re a racist just as much as those who won’t be voting for him for that reason.
However, if you are voting for him just because he can read a speech marginally better than the next-most liberal Senator, then you deserve the bitter disappointment you will end up with.
(There’s a reason why Jimmy Carter won in ’76, and there’s a reason why he lost in a landslide in ’80, and it wasn’t because Jimmy didn’t know how to deliver a speech.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 3:26 pmDrum, I ain’t saying nothing to you till you tell me who you will vote for. You know where I stand, where do you stand?
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/2/2008 @ 3:46 pmNeither McCain nor Obama. None of the “Peace and Freedom”-type candidates, either.
You figure it out.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 3:57 pmNice double negative, too.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 3:58 pm#166
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/2/2008 @ 4:03 pmLovey – Open your good eye and try to evaluate you candidate impartially.
Like this? 😉
Wrong. You may think you’re voting for someone else, but in the end you’re just casting half a vote for each. Not that it matters, anyway; my admitting to the U.S. Census that you lived in Cali in 2000, you’ve effectively “voted” for Obama (as have I, alas).
Xrlq (62cad4) — 8/2/2008 @ 4:03 pmI’m not voting for ANYONE at this point. None of the candidates that appear on the ballots in my precinct have met the minimum standard, although there are at least three that have earned my enmity.
I live in a heavily Republican county, but we only equal about 1/10 of the population of the metropolitan regions, so everyone who votes for McCain here are going to be disenfranchised by the Blue-State vacuum in the big cities (LA & SF).
Which means I won’t be voting for McCain, just because people argue, “But… but… President Obama!”
*shrug* We survived the walking disaster from Plains.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 4:16 pmYou know what Drum? I think you are a closet fan of one of these two but to give some authenticity to your comments, you have to appear non partisan and independent. Problem is, your independency and neutrality seems to be beating one candidate up while deifying the other.
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/2/2008 @ 4:44 pmNow, you figure you out.
I have seen nobody, but nobody, deify McCain. Baracky, on the other hand, has the other-worldly vote.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/2/2008 @ 4:53 pmJust something to think about: lots of unborn children won’t. And soldiers, if Prez Obama does something stupid re: the war on terror that costs one unnecessary life.
And other groups I can think of, the way The One throws people under the bus (remember Bill Clinton scoring cheap political points by saying, “OF COURSE we’ll welcome Haitian refugees; it’d be immoral not to!” Haitians by the hundreds or maybe thousands, I don’t know, made the mistake of believing a word he said and tore the roofs off their huts to swim to get here; scores drowned and the survivors were turned away anyway).
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/2/2008 @ 4:56 pm*shrug* We survived the walking disaster from Plains.
Comment by Drumwaster — 8/2/2008 @ 4:16 pm
Sorry. This is what my comment of 4:56 was replying to.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/2/2008 @ 4:57 pmOnce again, you’re working without tools. I will not be voting for McCain unless some serious alterations on made on several issues I find important. In fact, the only issue that McCain and I agree on is the need for a War on Terror.
Not on taxes, not on immigration, not on economic policy, not on almost every social issue; just national security.
And that, while important, is simply not sufficient.
I defend the facts, plain and simple. Fact is, Obama is unqualified to be President. He is utterly worthless on whatever issue you name, and he has displayed his ignorance of every single subject on which he has chosen to pontificate without a script or teleprompter. Every single one.
He has displayed a contempt for our service people that you excuse and apologize for. It’s clear that neither you nor he sees anything wrong with it, despite your assertions of caring for the troops.
He has displayed a contempt for the voters of illinois that elected him to his position, because he spent a mere 143 days in the Senate before announcing that he was going to run for President. (Just an FYI, there are more than 160 games in a single baseball season, so this is like a rookie left fielder halfway into the season who suddenly thinks he should run the league.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:05 pm#179
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:35 pmDavid was an inexperienced, untrained, unexposed shepherd boy. Yet God used him to work a great deliverance for the people of Israel. He took out Goliath when no trained, battle-tested Israeli soldier would dare. God used a little, inexperienced boy. What was He thinking! But He did and Israel was saved. Wake up to the new reality. The tables have turned. Those who claim to be wise and experienced and strong will be replaced by those who know they don’t know and depend on Him (God). The proud will be abased and the humble and unknown will emerge suddenly from nowhere and will be celebrated. Obama’s disqualification before man is his qualification before God. This, my friend, is the mystery behind the Obama phenomenon.
love2008, that was incoherent even by your standards.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:36 pmSo even David as a boy had more military experience than Obama? That isn’t a compliment, lovey.
Lovey, maybe you should reread the middle of that story, too. David ended up leading a band of bandits up in the hills for years before he became King of Israel. He was a rebel leader and hunted by King Saul.
Yet another argument that falls apart because the facts and you are like oil and water.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:43 pmI think if you are looking for Biblical stories describing Obama, you might want to try much later in the Bible.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:44 pmThe proud will be abased and the humble and unknown will emerge suddenly from nowhere and will be celebrated. Obama’s disqualification before man is his qualification before God. This, my friend, is the mystery behind the Obama phenomenon.
Comment by love2008 — 8/2/2008 @ 5:35 pm
Oh…my…gosh.
Didn’t truly “get” Obamamania…till just now. Appreciate your posting that.
So…tou’re saying Obama knows that he is chosen by God to be President, did I understand you right? And further, that he is “humbly” accepting this burden? Is that right?
Not following along well enough I guess, because I hadn’t noticed you saying that before. Obama really seems quite proud and arrogant to be, not humble at all.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:52 pmUnless you are reading your bible up-side-down, Drum, but David was not chosen because he was a war general or soldier. He was chosen before that.
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:54 pmI think if you are looking for Biblical stories describing Obama, you might want to try much later in the Bible.
Comment by Drumwaster — 8/2/2008 @ 5:44 pm
No need to go too much further. Just look a bit later into David’s life, to see where lack of integrity, subsequent lies and the “throwing under the bus” of Uriah led King David. (Note the last sentence about this man, who really was God-chosen but who flubbed it up but good.)
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:56 pmSo Obama has been chosen by God as a child to lead the nation back to righteousness, is that it?
Wow, apparently it’s now not only racist to not vote for Obama, it is sacrilegious, too.
Good thing I’m not Jewish, huh?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:59 pmBambi –
reads well from a teleprompter
avoids votes
few legislative accomplishments in the US Senate
So – vote for him because he’s for change!
Yeah, it all makes sense now…
steve miller (eba841) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:02 pm#184
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:04 pmNo one can take that seat except God ordains it. But you wouldn’t know about that would you? And you say Obama is proud. Sorry but you are mixing two points. Being humble has both attitudinal and circumstantial sides to it. Is Obama proud? I don’t know. You tell me.
But he was still both of those things before he became King, didn’t he? Has Obama ever been in the military or shown any leadership?
Hell, he follows McCain around like a puppy on every issue. That isn’t leadership, nor is waffling on every issue. (I won’t even say he’s flip-flopping, since that would require he only holds one side of an issue at a time.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:04 pmOutrageously so, and with nothing to back it up, too.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:07 pmNo one can take that seat except God ordains it. But you wouldn’t know about that would you?
Well…am aware of this fact, being a Catholic Christian. Your humility seems to be shining through your last post :).
In any case, saying no one can be President except that God allows it, and claiming that Obama is indeed THE CHOSEN ONE ™, are two wildly divergent claims.
Help me out here – is what you just did called “moving the goalposts?”
And McCain’s followers AFAIK aren’t claiming God Wants Him In the President’s Chair. Yet you and other Obama supporters are claiming this.
I don’t claim to know what God wants for this nation. You do, apparently at Obama’s urging (See “The One” YouTube ad and other examples of Obama’s self styled Messiah rhetoric).
Who is the arrogant one? That’s what I want to know.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:09 pmIt’s not often we see one of Obama’s supporters coming right out and admitting a belief in his Messiahness like this.
Evil Pundit (646727) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:11 pm#193
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:38 pmBut don’t you think, should Obama become President it would be characterized as an act of God? Given all his liabilities. His thin resume and lack of presidential experience. Wouldn’t an Obama win be a miracle?
“Being humble has both attitudinal and circumstantial sides to it. Is Obama proud?”
Lovey – I not sure what you mean by attitudinal and circumstantial, but I would add that being humble has a huge behavioral component to it. That component is conspicuously lacking in Obama.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:43 pmMiracle is not the word that I would choose.
JD (712926) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:43 pmWell, HE is “the light of the world”, “the way and the truth and the life”.
Then there is this unique take on how Socialism and Christianity may be linked:
http://www.usavanguard.com/…/Opinion/The-Communist.Manifesto.And.The.Bible.Is.The.Light.And.The.Way-2616982.shtml
— I can see the bumper stickers: “Nanny State for Christ”
Icy Truth (94cc06) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:43 pmlove2008,
Why do you assume the intervention that helps Obama win is divine?
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:44 pmJust like any major national disaster.
Wouldn’t the moon exploding be also called a miracle?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:44 pm#193
But don’t you think, should Obama become President it would be characterized as an act of God? Given all his liabilities. His thin resume and lack of presidential experience. Wouldn’t an Obama win be a miracle?
Comment by love2008 — 8/2/2008 @ 6:38 pm
I think what you’re doing now is called “circular reasoning.” Meaning, the proof that he’s chosen is because if he wins it’ll be a miracle. ?? Maybe I misunderstand your reasoning.
In any case, my answer is a respectful “no.” I think there are perfectly secular reasons for a man as inexperienced and unqualified a man as Obama to win. Namely, his support from people like you, who “just believe” (for whatever reason; you can fill in that blank for us) that despite all his liabilities, he’s “just supposed” to be President. Add a little liberal guilt, and a desire by many undecideds not to “appear” racist and there you have many, many votes. The question is, will they be enough to elect Obama?
But the more urgent questions in my mind are, why did you just list a bunch of reasons not to vote for Obama and just dismiss them all? This is a real question: are you voting for Obama (if so, why) or against McCain (if so, why?) Please be specific.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:45 pmWell, HE is “the light of the world”, “the way and the truth and the life”.
Then there is this unique take on how Socialism and Christianity may be linked:
http://www.usavanguard.com/media/storage/paper973/news/2001/03/26/Opinion/The-Communist.Manifesto.And.The.Bible.Is.The.Light.And.The.Way-2616982.shtml
— I can see the bumper stickers: “Nanny State for Christ”
Icy Truth (94cc06) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:49 pm“But don’t you think, should Obama become President it would be characterized as an act of God?”
Lovey – Are you claiming a direct pipeline to God? I think people who rationalize their own behavior and events directly as the will of God are dangerous. The arrogance involved is unbelievable, particularly for believers. I think beliefs can guide the behavior of people, but claiming God told them to do things is a little wacky unless they were drunk or high at the time.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:49 pmdaleyrocks #202 claiming God told them to do things is a little wacky unless they were drunk or high at the time.
Apogee (366e8b) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:55 pmIt’s still a little wacky. That isn’t to say I haven’t tried it with women.
I am getting kind of tired of these crazies presuming to know what I think.
GOD (712926) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:56 pmIcy – Shouldn’t that be: Communists For Christ
I like the alliteration.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:57 pmI would only subject you to such a trial because I know you could withstand it.
GOD (712926) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:57 pmClorofluorocarbons for Christ ? CFC.
JD (712926) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:58 pmSocialists For The Savior
Icy Truth (94cc06) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:00 pmI know the question you all are asking: Has God chosen Obama to be President of the USA? I know I know….I know. Now lay your heads down and sleep. Such knowledge is too high for you folks.
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:03 pmJust leave your offering by the campaign office door, love2008, you are too unclean to be allowed in his hallowed presence.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:04 pmMorons for the Messiah
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:07 pmLobotomized Losers for the Lightworker
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:09 pmlove2008, as I suspected, you are just bluster…but fun bluster at that.
btw, at this point in time, I suspect even God Himself is getting somewhat annoyed at that presumptuous punk, The O, assuming he’s fit to sit at that prized right hand seat… 🙂
Dana (aed2e9) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:10 pmDo you presume to know God’s will Lovey?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:12 pm#198
love2008,
Why do you assume the intervention that helps Obama win is divine?
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:12 pmHello DRJ. Good evening. I don’t want to believe that God would allow such a serious thing as selecting the leader of the free world to the devil. I think He sees to it that such serious things are handled directly by Him. (Praises and honor to Him who lives for ever more and has given us His Son to draw us near Him. Amen and amen.) He is too holy and highly lifted up and all power belongs to Him.
November 5th; you, me, here; you: giving praise and honor to HIM who hath selected John McCain to be the 44th POTUS.
Icy Truth (94cc06) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:20 pmLovey – Would perhaps a less controversial way to express your thoughts be to say that everything that happens on earth is according to God’s plan. The way you are expressing it implies almost the annointing of one candidate at the expense of another, but perhaps that is indeed what you mean.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:24 pmlove2008,
I’m sincere. Why would God care about earthly things like presidents?
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:24 pmWhat church do you belong to Lovey?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:26 pm#214
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:29 pmDo you presume to know God’s will Lovey?
The will of God is known by no man except God Himself. Just like no man can know your thoughts except you, Daley. The only way to know God’s will is not by presumption but by divine revelation. That is to say, God revealing it to a man. So to answer your question, No.
But I can tell you this, anything is possible. Something else I can say is that God is in the business of men and yes, He is involved in the selection of leaders.
“Obama’s disqualification before man is his qualification before God. “
“The will of God is known by no man except God Himself.”
Incoherent troll.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:31 pmSo George W. Bush was also chosen by God?
How do you know God hasn’t chosen John McCain?
Evil Pundit (646727) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:32 pmI’m sincere. Why would God care about earthly things like presidents?
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:37 pmBecause DRJ, a wrong leader or president could be a vessel in the hand of the enemy against His purpose on earth. As you already know, the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. The world and all they in it.
God rules in the affairs of men. Kings and leaders are instruments of good or evil and it matters who is chosen. And to make this clear, Do I think Obama has been chosen by God? That is my personal opinion. Time will tell.
“The will of God is known by no man except God Himself.”
Lovey – I think we are in basic agreement, so all this talk of divination prior to the election is total bullshit.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:39 pmSo George W. Bush was also chosen by God?
How do you know God hasn’t chosen John McCain?
Comment by Evil Pundit — 8/2/2008 @ 7:32 pm
Exactly what I was going to ask.
Why would God care about earthly things like presidents?
Comment by DRJ — 8/2/2008 @ 7:24 pm
God does care about who leads human beings, but to say we know the purposes of why He wants a given leader in a given year, not ours to say.
There are examples in the Bible of God allowing leaders He didn’t want, either to punish people rebelling against Him or for some other reason. Don’t presume to know which would be the punishment (either of them for all I know) even though I do have my opinions as all of us do, I don’t claim to know. Yet love2008 did claim this:
Such knowledge is too high for you folks.
Comment by love2008 — 8/2/2008 @ 7:03 pm
You imply in that post and others, though, that it’s not too high for you, despite your later disclaimer.
Am very confused by your posts to be honest. They seem very contradictory to me. Others seem to think so too.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:42 pmAgain, what church do you belong to Lovey?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:44 pm#222
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:45 pmGod can use anybody. Both the so called qualified and the unqualified. Maybe He has chosen John McCain, maybe not. Maybe He has chosen Obama, maybe not.That is why it is inaccurate to say Obama’s inexperience can stop God from using Him. That is why you need to understand the depth of God’s power. He can use the unusable. So don’t look at the outward but at the heart. Only God knows the heart of men and based on that He chooses or rejects a man.
— Flailing attempt to get back on topic:
“John McCain is facing criticism from many Democrats for likening Barack Obama to Paris Hilton, but the Illinois senator made the same comparison himself at a dinner in 2004.
“Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame,” then Senator-elect Obama said at a Gridiron dinner in December, 2004. “I’ve already had an hour and a half. I mean, I’m so overexposed, I’m making Paris Hilton look like a recluse.”
That attempt at self deprecating humor was delivered little more than a month after he was elected to the US senate, and just weeks before he was sworn in.
The same comparison was also made in September 2006, when speculation swirled about whether the still-very coy Obama would mount a presidential bid.
Upon speaking at Tom Harkin’s annual Iowa steak fry — a must-attend event for any presidential hopeful — CNN asked Obama about the Paris Hilton comparisons.
“Yeah, exactly,” Obama started to reply before Harkin jumped in and said, “Remember that movie with Robert Redford that was called ‘The Natural, about a baseball player? This is the natural of politics.”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/30/the-paris-hilton-comparisons/
Harkin also proves in his statement that Obama is, as Jeremiah Wright proclaimed, just another politician.
Icy Truth (94cc06) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:47 pmVery true. The rest of us will have to judge them based on their actions. Or lack thereof.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:48 pmAgain, what church do you belong to Lovey?
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:49 pmI saw it the first time Daley.
And…?
What are you doing, looking them up online to see which one you’re supposed to belong to?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:51 pmI saw it the first time Daley.
Comment by love2008 — 8/2/2008 @ 7:49 pm
Now my curiosity is piqued. 🙂 Not asking for your church, since you clearly don’t want to share and that’s fine, but (if it’s OK to ask), what is the reason you prefer not to share…?
I only ask cause I’m a happy Catholic and don’t mind saying so to whomever asks. If someone has a problem w/ that (and some do :P), I’m sorry about that, but I’m no less happy because of it. 🙂
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:54 pmwhomever = whoever. Time for more caffeine.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:55 pmPerhaps our resident active replacement for Levi can tell us if baroken obamanation has the numerals 666 tattooed on his genitalia and might actually be the anti-christ. A Jewish friend of mine suggests that Urkel is a symptom of the world being in Gog and Magog already and not knowing it. I’m sure he/she/it is ready to do whatever the lightworker demands.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/2/2008 @ 8:16 pmSpeaking of Daley. Why didn’t the dems just cut out the middleman and select Mayor Daley of Chicago as the nominee? He has much more experience and there would no longer be the need for puppet strings between that corruptocrat and Obama. And why not a mayor? Some thought the media-despised Rudy Guliani was a potential GOP nominee. Really, who actually controls the Messiah?
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/2/2008 @ 8:20 pmno one you know #225,
I agree, and your link is better than mine. I was going to use John 19:11. I just wanted to see what love2008 would say.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/2/2008 @ 8:21 pm#234 — I think the Antichrist theory is at least as plausible as the Messiah belief.
Evil Pundit (646727) — 8/2/2008 @ 8:32 pmI was going to use John 19:11.
Comment by DRJ — 8/2/2008 @ 8:21 pm
Great verse – had forgotten about that reference.
I just wanted to see what love2008 would say.
While it’s love2008’s privilege of course not to answer any personal question, it just seems a little, well, strange IMO, for anyone for whom religion is very important anyway, to be reluctant to share one’s religious affiliation when asked. Just MO, and it just makes me wonder, how do I put this, whether or how or why the support for Obama would explain any of the reluctance. Hope am not out of line to at least ask. love2008 can always say MYOB 🙂 and will respect that.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/2/2008 @ 8:34 pmlove2008,
Thank you for your answers. I hope God blesses America and its Presidents.
no one you know,
I’m not overly concerned about knowing love2008’s religion. I’ve discussed many personal things online but there are a few things I’m not comfortable revealing, primarily because I just don’t want to. Love2008 may feel the same way about this.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/2/2008 @ 8:44 pmI’ve discussed many personal things online but there are a few things I’m not comfortable revealing, primarily because I just don’t want to. Love2008 may feel the same way about this.
Comment by DRJ — 8/2/2008 @ 8:44 pm
Very possible. And thanks for your perspective. No disrespect to love2008 intended re: faith.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/2/2008 @ 8:47 pmI don’t think it’s disrespectful to ask a question about religion.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/2/2008 @ 8:50 pmmax – I can’t comment on your 235, conflict, plus Richie would hunt me down.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/2/2008 @ 8:50 pm#238 I liked the way Samuel L. Jackson emoted that altered Ezekiel quote in Pulp Fiction. And as far as teleprompter Obama’s style of speech goes, that may be one reason some people fawn all over him even though his words actually mean nothing. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a fine orator and I’d ask the trolls if they think Obama should be judged on his skin color or on the content of his CHARACTER?
If anyone asked my about who is what here, I’d plead ignorance. I do recall that Levi is in Montana and DRJ in West Texas, but no clue about religious affiliations. My opinion is that Obama is a phony Christian who used Wright for street cred. I think Hillary is also a phony when it comes to speechifying in black churches with that goofy accent. It’s a shame that Mitt Romney will likely be bypassed because of HIS religion and the fact that fundmentalist so-called Christians would veto any such choice of Romney. I could not vote for a general jackass preacher such as Huckabee. Just can’t see him as POTUS if McCain had to go.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/2/2008 @ 8:52 pmNothing against religion per se, but had my fill of self-righteous holier than thou jackass ministers and Catholic priests, for that matter. My ex was a Mennonite and I can’t say anything negative about those religious folks. I’m a lapsed Catholic and went to a Jesuit University- Villanova and their law school also. Not to stereotype, but I wouldn’t buy anything a fundamentalist minister was selling. Anyway aren’t many from the far left negative on religion, other than the stuff like worshipping the Goracle AGW and the Messiah?
“I don’t think it’s disrespectful to ask a question about religion.”
My intent was not to ask in a disrespectful manner. My apologies to Lovey and anyone else if they were taken that way. As I suspected, Lovey and I were in basic agreement on overall theology, but it was his personal beliefs I found very curious tonight.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/2/2008 @ 8:55 pmno one you know, you have a very considerate way of inquiry toward those you are sincerely trying to understand. That being one of the reasons why I appreciate your comments.
“So don’t look at the outward but at the heart. Only God knows the heart of men and based on that He chooses or rejects a man.”
If God only knows the heart of man, how can we as mere mortals also know it? We have therefore got to look at the outward evidence: the actions and character of a man for they reveal what already dwells within the heart.
Dana (aed2e9) — 8/2/2008 @ 9:20 pmgosh, what a poorly worded sentence above… ack.
Dana (aed2e9) — 8/2/2008 @ 9:21 pmIf God only knows the heart of man, how can we as mere mortals also know it?
Dana – We can’t, as you point out.
I also believe that we cannot know what God’s will is for another person and that is a point where Lovey and I would have a fundamental disagreement. Lovey’s belief that Obama has been chosen seems to conflict on a basic level with some other statements he made here.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/2/2008 @ 9:39 pmThis is intriguing. I’m interested in comparing notes on religions and how they view politics. I’m an Episcopalian, part of the worldwide Anglican church that is currently in schizm. I guess that makes us certified schizophrenics and it shows because our church doctrine is all over the place.
But my version of church doctrine is that when two or more believers pray, the prayer will be answered although it may not be answered exactly as expected. I think God knows what will happen in our lives but our lives are not preordained. And, finally, I believe in praying for guidance and wisdom in choices, including praying that all leaders should be guided by God.
I don’t view God as a divine superdelegate who picks our secular or religious leaders, although I believe He helps guide us to certain choices and places in our lives and He knows who those leaders will be. But I haven’t given this much thought from a philosophical perspective so I’m interested in what others think.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/2/2008 @ 10:02 pmWhen the stars threw down their spears
And watered Heaven with their tears ….
When spirit became matter.
God set limits on how much further the spirit could deteriorate. Some might say that limit is too low.
nk (e8a4f1) — 8/2/2008 @ 10:55 pmlove2008, without a bit of irony, wrote:
::::::::::::Deep Sigh::::::::::::
I could go absolutely hog wild giving reasons why the above paragraph is disturbing, and the author is disturbed. Instead, I’ll do this — cite the the events leading up to young David’s being permitted by King Saul to face the mighty Philistine warrior, Goliath.
So Lovey, David was far from “a little, inexperienced boy” — he was someone whose confidence in God’s assistance was confirmed by his victories over wild animals that tried to carry off one of his sheep. Without having that experience to relate to Saul, it is unlikely, Saul would have sent him to face Goliath.
Now, let’s look at the events leading up to Samuel discovering that David was the one chosen to succeed Saul as King:
Now, am I saying that John McCain was chosen by God to be President? Unlike you, Lovey, I wouldn’t dare say such a thing about ANY politician. I am saying two things:
1. Your parallel of Obama with David is fatally flawed because David had experience. And it is off-the-charts foolish to suggest that because someone with qualifying experience is (IYHO) a lousy POTUS, someone who has NO experience would be a better one.
2. Making a determination about what is in someone’s heart because of his/her outward appearance is ridiculous. Ascribing greatness to someone on the basis of not having observed them long enough to discover his/her flaws is the opposite of logic.
L.N. Smithee (14949d) — 8/3/2008 @ 12:46 amBut don’t you think, should Obama become President it would be characterized as an act of God? Given all his liabilities. His thin resume and lack of presidential experience. Wouldn’t an Obama win be a miracle?
Love2008, remember when the left used to make fun of George Bush on the grounds he thought he was receiving his orders from God (or something to that effect).
Don’t you think this way, way . . . way . . . waaay past that?
I mean, this is almost into medieval ordeal territory.
Anon (db8e0c) — 8/3/2008 @ 3:11 am“You cant accept the fact that Obama is more literate than your candidates, both incumbent and aspiring.”
More literate, NO. Better able to read a tele prompter yes. More verbose when being coached maybe.
davod (5bdbd3) — 8/3/2008 @ 3:34 amHello DRJ. Your comment #248, I found very inspirational. You really have a gift there. May God bless you so much.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/3/2008 @ 11:57 am“the prayer will be answered although it may not be answered exactly as expected”
DRJ – Which is usually why I append “if it be thy will” to any specific prayers.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/3/2008 @ 12:19 pmThere are three possible answers to any prayer: yes, no, or not yet.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/3/2008 @ 12:27 pmRemember, love: Nov. 5th; you and me. It’s a date!
Icy Truth (c4ec85) — 8/3/2008 @ 3:12 pmWhat exactly will be happening on Nov.5th Icy?
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/3/2008 @ 3:25 pmLove, are you going to address the fact that David had already had experience after killing a lion and a bear before facing Goliath? Or are you going to pretend you haven’t read my post?
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 8/4/2008 @ 9:35 amL.N. – consider yourself an apostate. I will not even bother with a denunciation or condemnation.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/4/2008 @ 10:35 am#257 – What exactly will be happening on Nov.5th Icy?
#215. I don’t want to believe that God would allow such a serious thing as selecting the leader of the free world to the devil. I think He sees to it that such serious things are handled directly by Him. (Praises and honor to Him who lives for ever more and has given us His Son to draw us near Him. Amen and amen.) He is too holy and highly lifted up and all power belongs to Him.
Comment by love2008 — 8/2/2008 @ 7:12 pm
#216. November 5th; you, me, here; you: giving praise and honor to HIM who hath selected John McCain to be the 44th POTUS.
Comment by Icy Truth — 8/2/2008 @ 7:20 pm
— Do you remember now? It’s a date!
Icy Truth (ca1185) — 8/4/2008 @ 10:38 amI denounce and condemn you for that.
So, there!
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 10:40 am#250 L.N. Smithee:
This is too excellent. I think someone on the Right just tried to swift-boat the second biblical King of Israel, David.
Wait till AIPAC hears about this!
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/4/2008 @ 11:30 amConspiracy? Check.
Not understanding simple English? Check.
Man, you can’t get anything correct, can you?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 11:35 amAlso L.N., anyone from a Judeo-Christian background is going to dispute your take on the spirit behind that parable which any child can explain to you: That faith and courage are incredibly powerful and can even slay monsters and giants.
I don’t think anyone cares so much about the Lion and the Bear. Goliath was a thousand times a thousand, times worse. Any reasonably bright and brave person can find a way to kill a “lion” or a “bear”. Not to mention that it’s metaphorical.
Are you really, going to deny that Barack Obama, with his multi-racial upbringing and the bridging of white, black, Christian, Muslim, Indonesian and American cultures hasn’t already had to slay some lions and bears in his life, on the inside, and in the real outside world?
This bridging and slaying of inner and outer demons, lions, bears and goliaths, I would say is an intrinsically American trait, especially for those with multiple backgrounds to bring together. Especially immigrants, although obviously Obama was born an American citizen.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/4/2008 @ 11:46 amSays who? David wasn’t speaking metaphorically.
This claim not only maxes out the “Full o’ Shit-o-Meter”, it snaps the needle off.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 11:50 amDrumwaster:
No sense of humor whatsoever: Check
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/4/2008 @ 11:51 amAs dense as a bag of hammers: Check
As easy going as a pit-bull: Check
Overdue on his late morning/Noon meds: Check
You say this like it’s a bad thing. I’m extraordinarily gentle with those who deserve it, and those who don’t know any better.
You, however, have proven yourself to be a liar and a troll with no redeeming value other than my entertainment. So you’d better get a move on while I’m reloading.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 11:55 amMan the smell of horse manure emanating from the trolls today is reassuring since Obama and his minions are such horses’ asses to begin with at any time. Which way is the wind blowing? Get your free tire guages from RNC and save the planet. Wash in the shower, use those sheets and towels more between washings and save more CO2.Praise the Messiah and render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to Obamalamadingdong what is Urkel’s.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/4/2008 @ 12:01 pmNYT so good at code.
I test:
NYT, what this code mean….
“Osama sleeps with sheep”
(Answer–no peeking– it is “Osama sleeps with sheep”)
PashaG (3de24f) — 8/4/2008 @ 12:30 pmYou like throwing empty words around don’t you. You think I’m a troll? By your definition anyone who disagrees with you is a troll, so I’m afraid that word means nothing from you.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/4/2008 @ 1:47 pmNo, my definition of troll is the same one everyone uses, just some loser that shows up and throws around debunked claims and worthless arguments, then either denies the facts or makes up new lies as he goes along.
Or both, as you routinely do.
You are deliberately ignoring reality and you are telling lies that you have already been caught in more than once.
Why is that, Peter?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 2:10 pmSorry to jump into the middle of conversation, but I can’t help buy wonder why does Peter think that “bear and lion” are metaphorical?
Mongol (585420) — 8/4/2008 @ 2:27 pmI have often said, Peter, if you have to lie, obfuscate, embellish or act in other types of dishonest behavior to make your points, you might want to re-evaluate the point you are trying to make.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/4/2008 @ 2:30 pmRealist!
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 2:32 pmI think it was the many times he was
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 2:35 pmpushed down the stairs as a childdropped on his head as an infant. But who knows? It could be a native talent for stupidity…Peter #264:
Children see monsters and giants in shadows under the bed or behind the curtain. Adults know that real challenges require faith, courage, reason, skill, and action.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/4/2008 @ 2:37 pmlol, that could be… hopefully though it’s nothing that bad. Peter, unless I am mistaken, seems to miss the point that faith needs to be based on God, not on “hope and change”, and courage stems from the faith based on God, otherwise it’s stupidity.
Mongol (585420) — 8/4/2008 @ 2:48 pmPeter, in response to my questioning of Love2008’s truncated version of David’s confrontation with Goliath, wrote:
Hey, Pete — remember when I wrote this?
Thanks for proving me right. Again.
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 8/4/2008 @ 2:55 pmI think David’s son(?) explains the David and Goliath myth pretty well:
nk (e8a4f1) — 8/4/2008 @ 3:06 pmIt’s always dangerous to take a passage from the Bible in isolation and even more dangerous to read the Old Testament as literal truth.
nk (e8a4f1) — 8/4/2008 @ 3:12 pmYou can’t have it both ways. Either David existed and had a son (and wrote several books of the Bible), or the whole David and Goliath story is a “myth”, which means that David didn’t really exist. (This would explain your antipathy, but that’s another bitch-slap for another day.)
Not to mention that your quote (Ecclesiastes 9:11) has nothing to do with the slaying of Goliath. It has to do with the vagaries of fortune. (Try reading the whole chapter for the context.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 3:18 pmnk don’t do drugs is dangerous for your mental abilities lol
Mongol (585420) — 8/4/2008 @ 3:19 pmYou can’t have it both ways. Either David existed and had a son (and wrote several books of the Bible), or the whole David and Goliath story is a “myth”, which means that David didn’t really exist.
The author of Ecclesiastes calls himself “the Son of David” but the prevailing view is that it is used metaphorically. Whether David was historical or not, does not mean that the story of David and Goliath is not a myth. We have a “David” in America’s history who is said to have grinned a bear to death.
Not to mention that your quote (Ecclesiastes 9:11) has nothing to do with the slaying of Goliath. It has to do with the vagaries of fortune.
That is too stupid to respond to.
nk (e8a4f1) — 8/4/2008 @ 4:02 pmWhats your point exactly NK?
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/4/2008 @ 4:25 pmYeah, I usually tend to say things like that when I get beaten, too. Aesop would have called it “Sour Grapes”.
Speaking of which, another quote from your book (though by a different Author): “The father has eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”
“Prevailing View”? Whose view, precisely? And why would a shepherd needing to defend his flock against predators – a very real hazard, by the way – be considered a metaphor?
If David was a shepherd, then he almost certainly had to defend his flock at one point or another. That is why they carry staffs and other hand=held weapons.
And if you think that the use of a sling to accelerate a lethal object is a metaphor, I am here to tell you that it isn’t.
We were engaged in a water balloon fight between ships, many years ago. Two ships steaming along, side by side, about 30 yards apart. It’s pretty tough to throw a water balloon 30 yards, much less be accurate with it, much less be accurate enough to hit what you are aiming for.
One of the gunner’s mates had torn a strip of cloth from his T-shirt, and fashioned a sling out of it, much like David would have used.
Said Gunny started whirling that sucker around his head a few times and almost took off the hat of the other ship’s XO. He then started improving his aim by picking out individuals now hiding and hitting either their hidey-hole or the walls behind them (if one was there).
Sure as hell kept their heads down and he was too accurate to call it random. David would have spent a lot of time practicing while watching the sheep eat and wander, and rocks are cheap ammunition.
There is proof that there once was a people called the Philistines. They also don’t exist anymore, while the Jews are still around.
And Davey Crockett also existed.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 4:27 pmnk wrote: The author of Ecclesiastes calls himself “the Son of David” but the prevailing view is that it is used metaphorically.
The “prevailing view” among whom?
Whether David was historical or not, does not mean that the story of David and Goliath is not a myth. We have a “David” in America’s history who is said to have grinned a bear to death.
Oh, well, that settles it then. : | Everything is a myth and everyone is a mythical character unless their actuality would serve your rhetorical goals.
[To Drumwaster:] That is too stupid to respond to.
Translation: “I don’t have enough Bible knowledge to dispute that, so I’ll just fake out all the other non-believers and pretend you’re obviously wrong.”
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 8/4/2008 @ 4:30 pmlove2008, you’re here! 🙂
Eagerly awaiting your explanation of your omission of David’s experience.
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 8/4/2008 @ 4:32 pmJust FYI, nk, I’m also ordained. Do you really want to take me on about the Bible?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 4:37 pmWhats your point exactly NK?
What I said in the first place. It is dangerous to take passages from the Bible in isolation and even more dangerous to take the Old Testament literally. The Bible is a coherent whole in which every part interrelates with each other and myth, allegory, metaphor and parable both expand on and explain each other for the lesson they try to teach.
nk (e8a4f1) — 8/4/2008 @ 4:37 pmOk, L.N. Smithee,
There was a historical Myceanae, a historical Sparta, a historical Argos and a historical Troy. So it stands to reason that the goddess Athena guided the spear of Diomedes to wound the god Ares before the walls of Troy and a seven-headed sea monster ate seven of Odysseus’s sailors.
nk (e8a4f1) — 8/4/2008 @ 4:41 pmnk wrote: It is dangerous to take passages from the Bible in isolation and even more dangerous to take the Old Testament literally. The Bible is a coherent whole in which every part interrelates with each other and myth, allegory, metaphor and parable both expand on and explain each other for the lesson they try to teach.
What could a person who wrote the paragraph above know about coherence?
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 8/4/2008 @ 4:45 pmHi LN.
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/4/2008 @ 4:46 pmThere are folks here who display so much ignorance of basic history. To allege that real life bible characters are figments of imagination is the height of preposterous and stupid!
Just FYI, nk, I’m also ordained.
Do you consider the Old Testament literal truth? More specifically, do you consider Genesis literal truth or a myth?
nk (e8a4f1) — 8/4/2008 @ 4:47 pmnk wrote: Ok, L.N. Smithee,
There was a historical Myceanae, a historical Sparta, a historical Argos and a historical Troy. So it stands to reason that the goddess Athena guided the spear of Diomedes to wound the god Ares before the walls of Troy and a seven-headed sea monster ate seven of Odysseus’s sailors.
Holy non sequitur, Batman!
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 8/4/2008 @ 4:47 pmYeah, that whole “Sodom and Gomorrah” thing? Just a myth. Jericho? Never existed. Lucky we have such a wise
assperson to tell us what really happened.Inform us, Oh Half-Vast One.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 4:48 pmlove2008 wrote:
Hi, Lovey.
Please don’t patronize me. You must know by now why I’ve called you out.
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 8/4/2008 @ 4:52 pmTell me which part you are asking about.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 4:53 pmI do not like it when my friends argue.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/4/2008 @ 4:54 pm#290
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/4/2008 @ 4:57 pmOne question for nk. Is Jesus also a mythical story? Did He truly exist?
JD wrote: I do not like it when my friends argue.
I don’t like to argue with my friends. But sometimes, it’s gotta be done.
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 8/4/2008 @ 5:01 pmSo nk, tell me. How did the nation of Israel come to be? I am sure you can’t say this Israel who call themselves “children of a (mythical or literal) Abraham, is a myth. While answering my last question about Jesus, tell me how Israel came to exist.
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/4/2008 @ 5:06 pmYou don’t get to ask anything until you answer Smithee’s questions.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 5:07 pmMongol wrote: Sorry to jump into the middle of conversation, but I can’t help buy wonder why does Peter think that “bear and lion” are metaphorical?
Peter’s POV is outcome-based. He’s trying to save Lovey’s inaccurate depiction of the Biblical account of David and Goliath, suggesting that the Almighty may be using young, inexperienced Obama in the same manner.
Lovey’s favorable comparison, related in defense of Obama’s greenness, goes down in flames if she acknowledges that David would not have challenged Goliath if he hadn’t already had experience slaying a bear and a lion, enemies he bravely faced and defeated despite being physically overmatched.
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 8/4/2008 @ 5:11 pmI don’t think we’re arguing about anything that can be argued about. It looks like we have doctrinal differences. So let’s agree that you guys will worship God in your way and I in His.
nk (e8a4f1) — 8/4/2008 @ 5:13 pmOh, boy! Since we’re just making shit up again, I rule that anyone just using initials is a heretic. Sounds about right for this conversation…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 5:18 pm#303
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/4/2008 @ 5:36 pmLN. Yes David had fought a bear and a lion before meeting Goliath. Comparing that with Obama, I would say Hillary Clinton and Bill are the lion and bear and John McCain and George Bush (combined) is Goliath.
What made David think he could take out Goliath? If God could deliver the lion and the bear into his hands, He would also deliver the giant. As for military experience, he had none. All he had was that little stint in the desert with wild beasts.
Do you see the simile here?
So if I say that you are like the jackass, and Peter is as smart as solid marble, that makes me Samson!
Or, second scenario, and I’m just spitballing here, you’re a moron.
Show of hands?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 5:43 pm307 posts, and the commenters here haven’t been “on topic” for about 4 days. Move on.
WLS (26b1e5) — 8/4/2008 @ 5:44 pm#271 Drumwaster
So says you and who made you the owner of this blog (GYOFB) or the ultimate judge of what is reality? If you think I’m a troll I would take it up with Patterico, who decidedly does not think I’m a troll.And you need to apologize for calling me that.
If you have such strong feelings take it up with Patterico and make your case and have me banned. Until that time just get off my back.
Any cursory inspection of your comments on any thread, on almost any day, will show ample proof that you’re almost pathologically unable of having a civilized debate or discussion without it devolving into harassment and ad hominem attacks and you needing to call that person a troll for deigning to challenge your worldview.
Enough already.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/4/2008 @ 6:38 pmI don’t think you are a troll, Peter. But I’m often amused at what a poor command you often have of the very sources / facts you purport to cite.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/4/2008 @ 6:41 pm#309
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/4/2008 @ 6:51 pmjust get off my back.
My thoughts exactly Peter. He is becoming one heck of a pain in the groin.
#276 DRJ:
Absolutely, but that ability to face down ones the fears of childhood directly translates into an adult’s ability to deal with the sometimes, overwhelming challenges he or she faces. If you’re frozen with fear, you’ve already lost and how many times does even an adult learn that that thing that seemed insurmountable became not so terrible at all once those elements you mention above are put into play.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/4/2008 @ 6:54 pmLove2008:
Ignore him. He owes you an apology also. You don’t have to justify or explain your faith to anybody.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/4/2008 @ 6:56 pmIs that an ‘Uncle’ I hear, liar? Then go forth and lie no more. The moment you do, I will be back on your ass like a Chicago Democrat on a cemetery precinct.
I expect that will be sometime tomorrow, since you just can’t help yourself.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 6:57 pmBetter be able to back this up, because this one will count as a lie.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 6:58 pm#313
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/4/2008 @ 7:13 pmApology? Drumwaster? Ha! That will be a cold day in hell Peter. Don’t hold your breath for that. He is annoyingly opinionated, arrogant and insulting. He feels he knows everything. Drumwaster is never wrong. He is the One that holds all knowledge. And every contrary view is heretic. I think deep down he is insecure and feels that the only way to gain some self worth is by trying to put others down and making them feel bad. It’s a disease, man.
Self-loathing and bitterness too. Like any bully, he’s only tough and feels strong when he’s surrounded by a cheering section and an echo chamber to buoy his delicate ego. It’s sad.
I realize he won’t apologize. He does not have the decency or class that something like that would require. Even if Patterico has explicitly made it known he welcomes differing opinions and doesn’t think I’m a troll or Oiram or I’m sure you.
Anyhow bravo on your patience and persistence and sticking to your beliefs in the face of all this, you’re obviously a highly decent person.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/4/2008 @ 7:29 pmYou are entitled to your own opinions. You are NOT entitled to your own facts.
You state, repeat and defend statements that have been explicitly proven to be false-to-fact, yet can’t explain why you feel the need to lie to support your assertions.
And you think I am the one who owes someone an apology?
Peter, your middle name must be Hubris.
It ain’t just a feeling. If I don’t know it, I know where to find it. They didn’t call me the Fact-Bot for nothing…
Man, are you off track. Heh. I don’t have an ego; I just love how awesome I am.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 7:38 pmThanks Pal. It’s so refreshing to find one more sane voice on this blog. Just hang in there. Cynicism never wins.
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/4/2008 @ 7:58 pmI don’t think you are a troll either, Peter. (And I detest Obama.)
I think Drumwaster is the troll. He appears on every thread and makes every other comment which is mainly shit he makes up. He essentially tries to drown out every other commenter or make them sick of his nonsense and abandon the discussion. He has said he’s not going to vote for either McCain or Obama. I doubt he’s a Ronulian although he may be Stormfront. More likely, a LaRouchie.
nk (b94d62) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:01 pmComment #319 is to Peter. @ #317. But that should be obvious.
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:10 pmlove2008 wrote:
))))))))))) stunned silence (((((((((((
For your sake, I hope you’re pulling my leg.
L.N. Smithee (14949d) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:12 pm#318
You are entitled to your own opinions. You are NOT entitled to your own facts facts that prove me wrong and make me look silly.
There fixed that for you.
No ego? Are you f–king kidding me?? Remember this post DW?
That’s the post where you made the assertion that the reason, gas prices were going up was due to the fact the a Democratic majority Congress was voted into power November 2006.
It’s also the post where I exhaustively charted prices from 1994 forward from a chart provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration and basically took your argument apart for the utter partisan horse twaddle that it was.
And you’ve basically been on my shit, since that post, never letting an opportunity go by to insult me, discredit, twist my words around, label me a liar and in general be a massive pain in the ass.
You just will not let it go that you could proven so completely wrong. Stop twisting my words around for your own stupid enjoyment and that of your little gang of lackeys
As you so sleazily did here, simply because I did’t care to discuss what I said was a non-story. Yet you point to it again and again, as some proof that you have something on me. WTF??
Either this behavior stops or I will email DRJ, WLS and Patterico and you can take this up with them.
If anyone is a troll here it’s you, Drumwaster, and the record will prove it.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:14 pmI would no more vote for any of those losers than I would vote for you.
Too bad for you that I can back up what I say. You should try it sometime.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:16 pm#303
LN. Yes David had fought a bear and a lion before meeting Goliath. Comparing that with Obama, I would say Hillary Clinton and Bill are the lion and bear and John McCain and George Bush (combined) is Goliath.
What made David think he could take out Goliath? If God could deliver the lion and the bear into his hands, He would also deliver the giant. As for military experience, he had none. All he had was that little stint in the desert with wild beasts.
Do you see the simile here?
Comment by love2008 — 8/4/2008 @ 5:36 pm
love2008,
So you’re making a simile between David and Obama and even saying that Bill and Hillary are like the wild beasts.
But don’t let anyone say that you said Obama is chosen by God.
Did I get that right?
As I said before, I’m truly trying to understand your position but I can’t because you keep making contradictory statements. [Obama flip-flop joke heroically abstained from here. 🙂 ]
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:20 pm#320
Thanks, nk. You’re completely on the mark. Troll technique # 114. Call everyone else a Troll first to cover your own troll-behavior. He repeatedly says he’s not voting for anyone, and it’s strange that he gets so up in arms about certain issues. His only objective seems to be to attempt to shame, abuse and humiliate people. Call them idiots, liars, morons etc…and stifle any chance at decent debate. It’s like trying to talk through a hailstorm of endless fecal matter.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:22 pm“even saying that Bill and Hillary are like the wild beasts.”
hm….Bill & Hill…the wild beasts….works for me!
🙂
Dana (254946) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:22 pmShow one instance when I have twisted your words.
In fact, I quoted you EXACTLY several times in that other post, and that proves you are lying now, just as you were lying then.
And as far as labelling you a liar, what other word would I use to describe someone who repeatedly lies? If you robbed banks at every opportunity, I would be fully justified in calling you a bank robber. If you mugged senior citizens on a daily basis, I wouldn’t be denigrating your character (such as it is) to refer to you as a “mugger”.
I have conclusively proven that you have lied, that you have shown an utter contempt for the facts, and you have done nothing to correct your comments, choosing instead to reiterate them on a regular basis, even after they have been disproven. What word should I use to describe someone like that?
Or is it the bluntness of the word? Maybe you would prefer “prevaricator”? “Fibber”? “Fabulist”?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:24 pmCare to put our respective honesty up for a vote, Peter?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:26 pmnk wrote of Drumwaster: I doubt he’s a Ronulian although he may be Stormfront. More likely, a LaRouchie.
Dude. Tough talk from a guy who prefers Chinese fascism to religious freedom.
L.N. Smithee (14949d) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:26 pmPeter’s protests are kind of funny. Lie and distort, and people tend to call you on it.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:27 pm#324 DW
Nk, take away the ad hominem attacks and this is essentially what he says in every single comment.
Every once in a while he has a moment of compelling lucidity, but it’s really just to make you think he’s going to debate something in good faith, but it invariably goes back to being aforementioned hailstorm of fecal matter and pathologically abusive behavior.
I guess he gets off on it, somehow?
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:27 pmPeter, if you knew anything about the subjects you commented on and used links from sources that actually backed up your comments in an unbiased full fashion, rather than partial manner, and didn’t keep shifting the goalposts in the course of an argument, people wouldn’t have to keep calling you a liar, a troll or other silly names.
The fact that you keep repeating your negative conduct just reinforces the impression you are indeed not here in good faith.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:33 pm“Every once in a while he has a moment of compelling lucidity”
We are still waiting for your first one Peter.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:34 pmGee, Petey, looks awful lonely out there on that limb…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:35 pm#328
Fine, fine then don’t have anything to do with me. Simple enough errr no? Of course not, as a vicious Troll you get off on distortion, confusion, misplaced and bogus accusations and just being a sad, empty little sadist. I don’t have to prove Jack to you Jack.
Disagreements are one thing, but your behavior is something else completely. You truly are one of the lowest scum bags I’ve encountered.
Hey, DW you enjoy having sex with your mother? You really must stop that. Come on, DW prove to us that you don’t enjoy having sex with your mother. Just prove it already. Wait don’t you remember that you had sex with your mother? She said you did. /cognitive dissonace.
That was simply for illustrative purposes, but it nicely shows in a nutshell your strategy behind every single thread. Create a false assumption and then ask someone to prove something that cannot be proven and that if they try to defend against makes them sound completely ridiculous.
Your goose is cooked slimeball Troll.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:47 pm#332
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:51 pmDon’t indulge him further. It’s what he wants. It’s like feeding the beast.
I am an Obama supporter. If I am going to have a legitimate argument here it should be with a McCain supporter or a Ron Pauline. Not with some freak who calls the two candidates “losers” and has the guts to say repeatedly I would no more vote for any of those losers (comment #324).
So it begs the question, if he is neither for the GOP nor for the democrats (Even though all of his comments are anti-Obama), what is he really doing here?
Solution: Ignore him.
#333
Well take it up with Patterico. He does not think people with differing ideas are trolls and explicitly said that I’m not a troll. If you have a problem with the way I debate, you should make sure that it’s about the actual topic then some kind of: non quis sed quid
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:52 pmHark, I hear the cry of a progressive who’s shit has been exposed playing the victim card.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:53 pmThat was uncalled for, petey.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:55 pmYou mean by ignoring the facts and repeating lies? I think everyone here but YOU has a problem with it.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:58 pm#337 Love2008
Of course you’re right Love2008, but the man is so utterly and unforgivably a slime ball Troll. I want to make sure that the powers that be here see it for what it is. and put him in moderation or ban him completely.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:58 pm“Well take it up with Patterico. He does not think people with differing ideas are trolls and explicitly said that I’m not a troll. If you have a problem with the way I debate, you should make sure that it’s about the actual topic then some kind of: non quis sed quid”
Peter – I have been refuting your comments as well as insulting you. You don’t respond to the direct refutations of your information or questions of your information. Is that good faith? I think not.
I’m familiar with the way Patterico operates the blog, thanks. I also noted he said he only took a quick look at the comments before making the one about you that you seem so proud of.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/4/2008 @ 8:59 pmHey JD and DaleyCocks, you guys get off on playing second fiddle to a slime ball? Keep those pom poms going…kick those feet up high now. LOL.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/4/2008 @ 9:01 pmConsider yourself challenged, asswipe. The exact challenge that Levi got his ass kicked for. Ten substantive posts pro or con regarding an agreed-upon topic.
Care to try?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 9:03 pmBOHICA Peter, another military term.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/4/2008 @ 9:05 pmSolution: Ignore him.
That’s my policy too but you and Peter started a very interesting religious discussion.
BTW, in answer to your earlier questions, I belong to this Church. (And I mean “belong”. I was consecrated to the Virgin when I was five years old.) Don’t worry, I won’t try to proselytize you. Our Church does not proselytize baptized Christians of other denominations.
nk (84001a) — 8/4/2008 @ 9:05 pmWell then STFU douche. You’ve refuted nothing, but play the same game as slimeball DW. Discredit, discredit and more discredit. I put a lot of time into my comments and back them up, because I want to debate in good faith, but instead I just get a bunch of right wing fraternity howdy boys who want a punching bag and to humiliate and when the tables are turned with cohesive facts begin squealing LIAR!! LIAR!! TROLL!! TROLL!!! Like a bunch of entitled stuck pigs on a spit. Screw you Daleycocks. I’ve taken your abuse repeatedly only to try and be civil get shit-all in return. Fuck you, you little scum bag. Maybe you should take DW’s cock out of your mouth long enough so that you could craft a cogent argument that wasn’t based on someone else’s.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/4/2008 @ 9:07 pmCan’t we all just get along? Liberals truly only believe in free speech for themselves. O!bama is willing to work with you Rethugs if you only see the light and do His bidding. Praise allah.
For a laugh see the Oval Office series that give syou an idea of what you are in for if O!bambi is elected. http://www.Stop-Him-Now.com
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/4/2008 @ 9:09 pmPeter – Why don’t you point to some comments you’ve answered?
Have you ever lived outside of New York.
Really, no need to get snippy.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/4/2008 @ 9:09 pmYou’ve been challenged, Peter. If this were 200 years ago, your lip would be bleeding from having felt the taste of my glove.
Let us… debate.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 9:10 pmGo back to fucking your mother, you cowardly slimeball troll. What a brilliant idea!!! WTF? I’ve already challenged and beat you on ten substantive posts. Let ti be judged on that. I got nothing to worry about. It’s you who’s going to have to go back and realize what a scummy troll bag you’ve been and continue to be…
Buh bye!!
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/4/2008 @ 9:11 pmPoint to two, liar.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 9:12 pmDamn, that was insightful, Peter. I’m a much better person for having read that.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/4/2008 @ 9:12 pmCall the Waaaambulance.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/4/2008 @ 9:13 pmWho are you supposed to be fucking John Hancock?
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/4/2008 @ 9:17 pmIf this were 200 years ago, you’d still be fucking your mother.
Those are some really mature outbursts there, petey. Step away from the bottle ….
JD (5f0e11) — 8/4/2008 @ 9:25 pmYou’ve been called out. You care to take the challenge, with the loser to be banned?
It’s the only way you’re going to get rid of me now, liar…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 9:26 pmI can see Peter has this place covered. Couldn’t have said it more ……creatively. Take it away Pete!
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/4/2008 @ 9:26 pmFunny thing? You know you don’t dare.
I would clean your clock in a debate and you know it. You know that I would beat you like a rented mule, whereupon you would be put down like the rabid dog you are.
And you wouldn’t be able to blame it on anyone but your own self, and that inherent allergy to facts you have.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 9:28 pmYou’d be next, lovey. Better start working out the wording on that apology you owe us all.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 9:29 pmGood night! Keep waiting for the apology Drum. Wow, Pete really knows to kick butt……
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/4/2008 @ 9:44 pmTsk….Tourette’s Syndrome is sooooo troll…
L.N. Smithee (14949d) — 8/4/2008 @ 9:45 pmFunny how he hasn’t responded to my challenge isn’t it?
Care to take his place, lovey? You’re almost attached enough to reality to make it fun.
Almost.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 9:47 pmnote that mr sensitivity has no problem intimating that Obama is divine. Lovetron666 doesn’t like people turning liberal’s own words back on them (the admitted and lauded sexual arousal of some in media when in proximity to the messiah), the numerous questions that are off-limits because obambots deem them racist or otherwise offensive. Harridan Michelle can campaign but she herself is off-limits also as far as questioning of her motives or words.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/4/2008 @ 9:47 pmLovetard is fine with his moonbat pal basically calling someone DW a mf’er, but cries and pees his pants when called on to present facts and something other than sophomoric opinions.
max – I’m just wondering whether Peter’s going to continue his tantrum tonight or wait until the morning.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/4/2008 @ 10:18 pmI’m betting not, because he knows that he can never beg, borrow or steal enough ‘nads to take me on with facts making the case instead of his nonsense.
And I’ll be up his nose until he either takes me up on it or until he takes to his high heels, hoping to find a hole and pull it in after him.
He has… annoyed me.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 10:29 pmFinal note to Petey: I’ve bookmarked this thread, too, and will be welcoming your every future comment with it, starting with #345.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 10:53 pmYeah, and I’ve bookmarked you fucking your mother.
Slimeball fucking Troll.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/5/2008 @ 12:09 am‘Ah… so what you gonna tell us, tough guy?’. I said ‘my usual, zero, nothing! Why tell you? What da fuck!’. He said ‘no, you gonna tell me something today, tough guy’. I said ‘all right, I’ll tell ya something: go fuck your mother!’.
Icy Truth (3aa3c0) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:28 am[Then, after the beating and the passing out:]
‘What you wanna tell me now, tough guy?’. I said ‘bing! What you doin’ here? I thought I told ya to go fuck your mother!’ Ha-ha-ha!!!… I thought he was gonna shit!
Whoa, Drumwaster is merely annoyed. Love has Peter’s back or at least approves of his tantrum amd Peter sounds near apoplectic. Still, only free speech. L.N. Smith, Daleyrocks and Icy Truth are groovin’. Can you dig it?
Cracks me up that Amazon is now censoring Nancy Pelosi’s negative book reviews. It seems that the one-star ratings were approaching 200 and are now around 28 and new negative posts deleted as they come in. Why even have a rating system if you’re going to game it? Wanna bet conservative books don’t get the same consideration? I might have to start buying elsewhere. Once again, free speech for thee, but not for me. What would Bob Herbert, Maureen Dowd or Paul Krugman think of those apples?
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/5/2008 @ 4:22 amThen the easiest way to get rid of me is to take me up on my challenge, and then beat me.
You’re too scared to do one and too stupid to do the other, which is why you are practically foaming at the mouth over your cowardice being on display for all to see.
C’mon, petey. With great power comes great responsibility, as your namesake said. Put up or shut up, you coward. (Or keep proving yourself a liar, whichever comes first.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 6:48 amWith great power comes great responsibility
With great fucking of your mother comes complete contempt. Fucking Troll.
I already have ten debates, in spite of your hailstorm of nonstop Troll fecal vomiting.
So boo fucking hoo for you, Slimeball fucking Troll.
[Speaking of trolls, Peter, one more comment like this and you’re going to moderation or worse. -X]
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:29 amAmazing how you can’t point to a single one, Petey, innit? C’mon, prove me wrong. Wouldn’t you like the bragging rights?
You’ve been challenged, and I think you are too cowardly to take me up on it, because I would beat you like a misbehaving whore.
Meanwhile, the profanity is all you have, and I think Patterico is noticing that, too. If you think you have more, then time to put up or shut up, because I know better.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:42 amEEEEEEnough with the mother-bleeping and whore-mistreating!
It’s starting to feel like when I first went online in the mid-90s and would visit random AOL chat rooms, with people threatening the lives of others like they were in a Roger Corman biker bar breaking beer bottles in half and swing pool cues!
I graduated from that long ago — haven’t the both of you?! Sheesh!
L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:29 amHey X,
Please email me. Thanks.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/5/2008 @ 6:31 pmAs soon as I get time, I’m putting Drumwaster and Peter in moderation both. X, if you have time, please do it now.
Not a ban. Just a protective measure. Appropriate comments will be removed in time.
Drumwaster’s been warned. Peter has gone so far off the reservation with the last few comments that I don’t feel like issuing him a warning. Anyone should know that language isn’t appropriate, with or without a warning.
I’ll not have my blog sullied by more of these comments.
Patterico (ca626d) — 8/6/2008 @ 10:05 amRe Pelosi’s book — not sure where I read it but one person who commented on it described it as 171 pages long with big type and large margins.
Sort of like a 4th grade composition book.
WLS (4ab682) — 8/6/2008 @ 10:38 amPatterico — no verdict yet?
WLS (4ab682) — 8/6/2008 @ 10:38 amWLS,
I generally prefer not to discuss my cases on my blog.
Patterico (63e7ff) — 8/6/2008 @ 4:47 pmNo problem.
WLS (26b1e5) — 8/6/2008 @ 4:48 pmWho is X?
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/6/2008 @ 6:05 pmDRJ, I assume X is XRLQ.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/6/2008 @ 6:10 pmAs for this thread: all testosterone. 24/7
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/6/2008 @ 6:52 pmAphrael, you assume correctly. By the time I saw Patterico’s comment, though, some other administrator had handled it already.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 8/6/2008 @ 8:17 pm