posted
If the fanatical left keeps on with its systematic campaign to malign Sarah Palin with statements that are totally false, they may in fact get Palin elected as the public reacts in anger to their obvious dishonesty and malice.
Marco Rubio in Florida is a rising star in the Republican Party. Not only does he have the support of the Tea Party movement, he is also Hispanic, and could finally bring in the Hispanic vote to the Republican Party.
Palin for president and Rubio for vice-president in 2012, might well be unbeatable. And all you who might react with disparagement and derision, know in your hearts that it could very well be true.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Never in a million years could Palin win, not with her completely alienating most of the country claiming that only rural people are "Real Americans", she easily was the one who cost McCain thew race among other factors.
If by some slim chance Palin ever did win your country would deserve to collapse in nuclear fire.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: 5) Find a candidate that would actually make a good President.
If the Democrats don't have to, I don't see why the Republicans should.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Me and my friends are already in the planning stages of constructing a secured bunker in a remote location, so far current estimates put it at 49,000$
IP: Logged |
posted
I hope Palin doesn't run, she would lose and she's very effective in her political hack role. Rubio....maybe in 2016. Chris Cristi would be great for 2012 with Michelle Backman for VP, that would bring in the women and Tea Party votes.
I hope we do get leaders that take seriously their oath to support and defend the constitution. Instead of one's that let special interest groups write the bills for them and say things like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To
posted
I guess it doesn't matter that Bachmann opposes the teaching of evolution, opposes minimum wage increases, wants to get rid of Medicare and Social Security, opposes gay marriage, and was a member of a church who preached that the Pope was the AntiChrist. Nope, as long as she's got those 2 X chromosomes, women everywhere, no matter what their beliefs, will fall over themselves to vote for her.
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I guess it doesn't matter that Bachmann opposes the teaching of evolution, opposes minimum wage increases, wants to get rid of Medicare and Social Security, opposes gay marriage, and was a member of a church who preached that the Pope was the AntiChrist. Nope, as long as she's got those 2 X chromosomes, women everywhere, no matter what their beliefs, will fall over themselves to vote for her.
Why not? My mother is an abortion clinic protester that would've voted for Hillary Clinton and a lifelong republican, Colen Powell supported Barack Obama. Racism and sexism does in fact exist....unfortunately.
Intellectually honest individuals wouldn't switch sides due to sex and skin color but most Americans aren't intillectually honest. Many people voted for Obama to prove they weren't racist. Now that blacks have indeed overcome racism in America (as proven by the election of Obama),.... principles matter once again. The Tea Party is a return to principles. My conservative mother would vote for Hillary in 2012 but wouldn't vote to reelect her in 2016. I know many consider me a racist despite the fact that my favorite freshman politicians are latino and black.
I'm not going to waste my time disproving your assertions about her. Pile on the accusations....afterall, it's the seriousness of the charge that matters. I'll stick to the legal principles of this nation...innocent until proven guilty. It's easy to make unsubstantiated statements. By the way, being opposed to gay marriage is not extreme....the vast majority of Americans are opposed to it. The Tea Party is not extreme either.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If the fanatical left keeps on with its systematic campaign to malign Sarah Palin with statements that are totally false, they may in fact get Palin elected as the public reacts in anger to their obvious dishonesty and malice.
Marco Rubio in Florida is a rising star in the Republican Party. Not only does he have the support of the Tea Party movement, he is also Hispanic, and could finally bring in the Hispanic vote to the Republican Party.
Palin for president and Rubio for vice-president in 2012, might well be unbeatable. And all you who might react with disparagement and derision, know in your hearts that it could very well be true.
Uh, no ... they react with disparagement and ridicule because the idea is false, and easy to disprove.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it's so easily disproved....why did you fail to disprove it. Should be easy. Of course, saying "it's easy to disprove" is much easier than actually, disproving it.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: 5) Find a candidate that would actually make a good President.
That hasn't happened in 200 years... Why should we start now?
Actually, I think it happens quite often.
The trouble usually is that both sides are so concerned with winning that they convince themselves and everyone else that the other guy isn't fit for anything, no matter what character that candidate has - which is silly, because if we choose poorly then everybody loses.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Even Jon Stewart derides himself as comedy central. Are you one of the Jon Stewart for president types? Can we degrade the presidency any more than "community organizer" as a qualification.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used The Daily Show to mock your assertion, and a comedy show seems perfectly suited for that.
Nope, I would not want Jon Stewart for president. Neither would he.
Did you really use an overgeneralized, dismissive and simplistic Palin bumper-stickerism? If so, I respond with the equally simplistic retort: "Jesus was a community organizer."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now that blacks have indeed overcome racism in America (as proven by the election of Obama)
I love how you throw these flat and utterly false statements out as your starting points. A high mark in the battle against racism was achieved, yes, and it's great to see. But you imply that thanks to that magic election racism no longer exists, and that no one voted for Obama on principle. Both are untrue.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I used The Daily Show to mock your assertion, and a comedy show seems perfectly suited for that.
Nope, I would not want Jon Stewart for president. Neither would he.
Did you really use an overgeneralized, dismissive and simplistic Palin bumper-stickerism? If so, I respond with the equally simplistic retort: "Jesus was a community organizer."
Jesus was in fact a community organizer. He was crucified for being a community organizer of all mankind. He was the first community organizer that included the "community" of all mankind. He didn't "organize" for the jews, arabs, whites or blacks. He offered salvation to everyone. The American Constitution offers freedom to everyone. Obama organized black people from south side Chicago. Jesus is like the constitution and the Jews that crucified him are like Obama.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now that blacks have indeed overcome racism in America (as proven by the election of Obama)
I love how you throw these flat and utterly false statements out as your starting points. A high mark in the battle against racism was achieved, yes, and it's great to see. But you imply that thanks to that magic election racism no longer exists, and that no one voted for Obama on principle. Both are untrue.
Racism does exist. My conservative mother would vote for Hillary and Powell supported Obama.
Maybe this isn't really racism or sexism. Racism and sexism implies a negative attitude against the other. My mother doesn't have a negative attitude against men and I'm sure Powell doesn't have a negative attitude against white presidential candidates. Powell and my Mother would vote against their ideals in order to make history. Once history has been made, it's been made forever.
Do you think Powell is going to support Obama in 2012? Want to bet?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was with you up till the last sentence, when you went all whacky on me. So close. (in reference to your previous post, another one snuck in while I was writing this)
(And, you'll note, I did say it was simplistic. One of my favorite signs from the, yes, Daily Show's rally last Saturday: "If Your Political Beliefs Fit On A Sign, Think Harder.")
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Powell will return to his core principles in 2012.
I love Jon Stewart and I found his rally hilarious. Colbert hiding in the bunker was really funny. He was ridiculing the extreme and it was funny. God help us when comedians rise to political power. Good comedy has a seed of truth.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think SNL had the more spot-on approach by having the faux Hillary come out and say "We don't agree on anything! I didn't want people to vote for any woman, I wanted to win, and I just happened to be a woman."
I'm still crossing my fingers that Obama dumps Biden in 2012 and picks someone else. Pursuant to that, how interesting would it be if he picked Olympia Snow or Susan Collins?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
My previous reply might've been based on the other conversation, not the Jesus one.
I find myself in a tough situation. My son's best friend is the daughter of our Muslim neighbor. Once and a while they fight over God or Ala. I stopped them from arguing and told them both that Ala and God are names of the one true god, said in different languages. My wife, the born again Christian pastor's daughter, disagreed with me. I'm the catholic school educated man.
I don't know how to teach my children that Jews, Christians and Muslims do in fact, follow the same god. We've deviated with acceptance of who is a prophet and who is a messiah. Even the Muslims view Jesus as a prophet.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think SNL had the more spot-on approach by having the faux Hillary come out and say "We don't agree on anything! I didn't want people to vote for any woman, I wanted to win, and I just happened to be a woman."
I'm still crossing my fingers that Obama dumps Biden in 2012 and picks someone else. Pursuant to that, how interesting would it be if he picked Olympia Snow or Susan Collins?
Obama picked Biden because he doesn't want a threat around him. He picked the gaff prone lackey that wasn't a threat. He's like the decent looking girl that hangs out with obese chicks. They make her look better.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think SNL had the more spot-on approach by having the faux Hillary come out and say "We don't agree on anything! I didn't want people to vote for any woman, I wanted to win, and I just happened to be a woman."
I'm still crossing my fingers that Obama dumps Biden in 2012 and picks someone else. Pursuant to that, how interesting would it be if he picked Olympia Snow or Susan Collins?
Obama picked Biden because he doesn't want a threat around him. He picked the gaff prone lackey that wasn't a threat. He's like the decent looking girl that hangs out with obese chicks. They make her look better.
He picked Biden because he needed to assuage people's doubts about his experience. With four years of the office in hand, he doesn't have to worry about that anymore. Besides, he needs to think about his successor. Biden isn't going to run in 2016, and a sitting VP is a powerful position from which to go after a White House run.
Now he can choose a running mate with thoughts towards two things: reelection and succession. Biden doesn't help him any more with either that a dozen others wouldn't help him with more. Hillary would be skating on the edge. She'd be almost seventy while taking a run at the office, and septuagenarians and higher starts to make people nervous. I guess that'd bump out Olympia Snowe too, though Susan Collins is five years younger. If constitutional law was different, Jennifer Granholm would make a fantastic choice. Either way, even if he went with a guy, there are a lot of great options out there.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The irony in many people thinking that they proved they weren't racists by electing Obama, is that they voted for Obama because he is black, which means it was a racially motivated vote. If more voters had been responsible and looked at all the things that properly should have been looked at--Obama's documented super-extreme positions, his grievous inexperience, his truly horrifying past associations, evidence that Bill Ayers (the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist bomber) ghost-wrote his book, and proof provided by eye-witnesses that Obama did launch his political career in Bill Ayers' living room (when presidential cadidate Obama told the American public that Bill Ayers was "just a guy who lived down the street"), the blindly racist and hateful and treasonous pastor whose sermons he listened to for 20 years without objection, the many questions about his legitimacy according to the U.S. Constitution to run for president, and so on and on--then they would have voted more intelligently, and would not have been guilty of racism.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Damn Ron,...that was one long sentence. Not disputing the content though.
If 96% of blacks voting for the black candidate isn't considered racist, combined with >50% of whites voting for the same black candidate in a 50-50 political ideology society....what can possibly prove or disprove racism? I suppose 96% of whites need to support Obama before racism is disproved?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually didn't Obama only get like 40% of the white vote? Granted that seems to fall in line with most Democratic candidates.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Actually didn't Obama only get like 40% of the white vote? Granted that seems to fall in line with most Democratic candidates.
You might be right. Only 60% of whites vote based upon race. I used the 96% statistic for blacks in the last election when normally, a meager 82% of blacks vote democrat.
During a typical election year of white v white, 82% are democrat. 14% of african americans put race before ideology...Colen Powell.
The white vote was not impacted by race. It fell "in line with democratic statistics".
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amazingly, neither malanthop or Ron consider for an instant that anyone might have voted for Obama because:
They were tired of the war and the torturing and the lying. They were tired of corporations and billionaires getting breaks to become even richer. They were tired of the way the Republican Party had been shifting even farther right. They were tired of the increasingly overweighted and unchecked Executive Branch. They were tired of science being thrown out the window in favor of ideology. They were tired of regulatory board positions being filled solely with lobbyists for the industries they were supposed to be regulating. They were tired of cabinet members chosen for loyalty over competence. They were tired of energy deals being made behind the scenes.
That was why I voted for Obama. Some of that he's addressed, and some is yet to come, and some of that he's let me down on so far.
I invite you to do a search for "McCain" or "Obama" or "Hillary" on this forum and include my member number (1138) to see what I've posted here. Over the course of the 2008 campaign I said, several times, that I could see myself voting for McCain and would if Hillary got the Democratic nod because I admired his integrity and his apparent desire to restore some balance to the government, whereas I couldn't see Hillary willingly giving up Bush and Cheney's imperial presidency super powers. When Obama won the primary I said we finally had the race I was hoping for, a race between two men who were acting like grownups for a change.
Then McCain hired the exact same people who were behind sliming him during the 2000 primaries to do the same thing to Obama with attack ads, and chose Sarah Palin for his running mate, and started grasping for the approval of the far right where before he had been closer to moderate, and he lost any chance of my vote. When he was clearly driven by a desire to win at any cost, rather than a desire to govern, he also lost a great deal of my respect. All of this is documented right here on Hatrack.
Oddly, absolutely none of my decision-making concerning the 2008 elections included race, or gender, or age, no matter how stridently you demand that it is so.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
You will never ever under any circumstances be able to convince the "Zerobama" people (the people who insist on referring him as that) that you voted Obama for any 'valid' reasons, or that he may have been a valid choice or moderate views at all and will always insist that he and the dems are the absolutely worst 'objective' choice for gov't and always for the same quasi libertarian views and will always use some sort of false dichotomy, ad hominems, etc any falicious argument possible to "win" the argument to support their self richtous views and don't you dare try to argue back or respond with sarcasm to their obviously stupid arguments in an effort to not seem confrontational because THEN you'll be called an arrogant "naive foolish spoiled brat, mullet" or for even daring to suggest that the UN had had some positive contributions.
/bitter, from wasting 3 weeks of his life on a "moderate-right" forum. "Blayne Barudorii" on TBOVerse.org if curious.
IP: Logged |
posted
This thread has become some sort of comically surreal political art experiment.
1. get malanthrop to start rambling about politics again 2. get ron lambert to start rambling about politics again 3. put them both in the same thread talking about presidential vetting 4. ??? 5. Your head hurts!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, I have never heard of the term "Zerobama" before. "Obamanation" I have heard of, but not that one. I will always be able to tell people that I learned that term from you.
Chris, there are always exceptions. Enjoy your exceptional status.
By the way, most of your reasons refer to President George Bush Jr., who was not running in 2008.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If more voters had been responsible and looked at all the things that properly should have been looked at--Obama's documented super-extreme positions, his grievous inexperience, his truly horrifying past associations, evidence that Bill Ayers (the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist bomber) ghost-wrote his book, and proof provided by eye-witnesses that Obama did launch his political career in Bill Ayers' living room (when presidential cadidate Obama told the American public that Bill Ayers was "just a guy who lived down the street"), the blindly racist and hateful and treasonous pastor whose sermons he listened to for 20 years without objection, the many questions about his legitimacy according to the U.S. Constitution to run for president, and so on and on--then they would have voted more intelligently, and would not have been guilty of racism.
I looked at all those things, and did not base my vote on racism, and voted for Obama anyway - and it appears to have been the correct vote, even in retrospect. None of the things you listed have caused any problem in Obama's Presidency: I have seen no sign of anti-American views, no unrepentant former terrorists being placed in positions of power, no super-extreme positions advocated by the White House, and no problems caused by any sort of lack of Constitutional "legitimacy". The past two years has pretty clearly demonstrated that virtually all of the Republican talking points from 2008 have amounted to nothing.
In retrospect, here's what the Republican talking point should have been: "If you give Democrats the Presidency and big majorities in both houses of Congress, they'll end up passing a bunch of the things they've long said they wanted to pass." Most of the unhappiness in this year's election comes from that. It's not that Democrats have secret views and lurk in the shadows with communists and anarchists. It's that Democrats were given the ability to pass what they wanted, and then passed the things they've always said they wanted to pass.
If Obama, specifically, is guilty of misleading us in any way, its not any of the things you listed. Obama's problem is he promised a change in the way things are done in Washington, as his central promise, and failed to deliver on it in the way people hoped. At least, so far.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: None of the things you listed have caused any problem in Obama's Presidency....
Oh they haven't? That is certainly not the way the majority of Americans judge it.
The majority of Americans have a way of judging things contrary to reality. I dare say this might be true of the majority of humans, but I only have experience here.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh they haven't? That is certainly not the way the majority of Americans judge it.
Where are these "majority of Americans" who are still concerned about Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, birth certificates, or hypothetical ultra-extreme positions?
Even just among those who disapprove of Obama's job the past two years (which is about 50% in recent polls), I suspect the vast majority of that disapproval has nothing to do with any of the above issues you listed. The past two years has not seen radical people being put into White House positions, or anti-American rhetoric coming out of the White House, or any secret positions being advanced that were not openly advocated by Obama during his campaign. Obama campaigned on health care reform, stimulus packages, taxing the wealthy more than the middle class, focusing more on Afghanistan, and essentially all the other major policies he's advanced in two years.
posted
And, something that keeps getting left out: a significant portion of the people polled who do not approve of Obama's performance (health care, stimulus, etc) are upset because he didn't go far enough. You don't get to count those people as being pro-Republican, and that loses you the "majority of Americans" thing.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax said: "The past two years has not seen radical people being put into White House positions, or anti-American rhetoric coming out of the White House...."
Radical People put into White House positions:
quote:A conservative and libertarian organization has distributed a glossy brochure spotlighting “Ten Typical Obama Appointees” to show that the president has given key positions to “some of the most radical appointees ever to control the federal bureaucracy.”
The release from the Americans for Limited Government (ALG) Research Foundation (www.getliberty.org) was compiled under the direction of Don Todd, who served in the Department of Labor during the George Bush administration and administered an operation that led to the convictions of 904 corrupt union officials.
The “typical Obama appointees” cited in the release are:
John Holdren: Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (Science Czar). In 1973, he advocated a “de-development” of the U.S. so the country may be “in line with the realities . . . of the world’s resource situation.” He has also favored government mandated family sizes.
Gil Kerlikowski: Director, White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (Drug Czar). As police chief in Seattle, he permitted methadone vans, free needle exchanges and medical marijuana, and made marijuana possession the lowest priority of law enforcement.
Gary Locke: Secretary of Commerce. During his tenure as governor of Washington, questions were raised regarding conflicts of interest arising from the state’s dealings with a company run by his brother-in-law — who was living in the executive mansion at the time.
Kathleen Merrigan: Deputy Secretary of Agriculture. She urges the creation and expansion of expensive federal programs to support organic farming — while acknowledging that there is no proof organic food is any better than conventionally grown food.
Mercedes Marquez: Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development. As general manager of the Los Angeles Housing Department, Marquez crusaded for affordable housing — but “much more affordable housing was lost in L.A. on Marquez’s watch then was built,” the release noted.
Karen Mills: Administrator of the Small Business Administration. An heir to the Tootsie Roll fortune, Mills has spearheaded ventures that have for the most part either failed or brought mediocre results to her investors. She has voiced support for legislation diverting small business contracts to venture capitalists.
Ron Sims: Deputy Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development. While Sims was the King County Executive in Washington State, his office “lied and refused to provide documents that it was legally required to provide” to an investigator probing a county deal, according to ALG. The county was fined $120,000.
William Spriggs: Assistant Secretary for Policy, Department of Labor. In April 2008, while the U.S. was in the grips of the recession, Spriggs co-authored a report calling for a substantial increase in the minimum wage.
Cass Sunstein: Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, White House Office of Management and Budget (Regulatory Czar). Sunstein supports the “Fairness Doctrine,” which would rein in conservative talk radio, and has suggested that animals might be given standing to sue in civil court.
Cathy Zoi: Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. She ran a group started by former Vice President Al Gore that ran TV ads asking viewers to demand that we “repower” America with 100 percent clean energy within 10 years.
All 10 appointees were confirmed by the Democratic-controlled Senate, most of them by a voice vote.
In addition to these sterling examples of Obama's taste in appointees, I have lost count of how many key Obama administration people have been indicted for income tax evasion. Evidently tax and spend liberal Democrats believe paying taxes is just for other people.
Anti-American Rhetoric
Perhaps you did not notice all those times Obama has gone around the world apologizing for the USA, bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia, and to the Emperor of Japan.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you did not notice all those times Obama has gone around the world apologizing for the USA, bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia, and to the Emperor of Japan.
Dammit Ron, let this go. This one inane, trumped-up talking point, please, let it go.
"The President doesn't bow to foreign leaders, ever" is not found in any official document or protocol. Even FOX News admits that "President Obama's deep bow to Japanese Emperor Akihito on Saturday may not have violated any official protocol, but..."
Generally, I've found that the people most worked up over this are those who feel that the U.S. needs to always act like the undisputed ruler of the world, rather than just one of its many nations. Frankly, arrogance is not what I'm looking for in my president. Apparently if you refuse to go around declaring yourself king of the world, you're considered weak and un-American.
[ November 05, 2010, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
