About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 5:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The desperation of the left in this election - which Obama is supposedly winning - is laughable. What one reads in the blovosphere is bad enough but read what the main stream press is frothing on about. Here is what Harold Meyerson, a columnist for the Washington Post (which broke Watergate) had to say:

But the economy is not all; the GOP's last best hope remains identity politics. In a year when the Democrats have an African American presidential nominee, the Republicans now more than ever are the white folks' party, the party that delays the advent of our multicultural future, the party of the American past. Republican conventions have long been bastions of de facto Caucasian exclusivity, but coming right after the diversity of Denver, this year's GOP convention is almost shockingly -- un-Americanly -- white. Long term, this whiteness is a huge problem. This year, however, whiteness is the only way Republicans cling to power. If the election is about the economy, they're cooked -- and their silence this week on nearly all things economic means that they know it.

Talk about projection. This isn't a blog, it's the second most important liberal news paper in the US.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/03, 5:54pm)


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 5:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pathetically, it is the Democratic Party which is the harbinger of the past - the horry past of the Primordial Age, when all were tribes under subjugation, when all existed for others and self was almost unheard of [except, of course, for the messiahtic leaders], and poor didn't exist - because all were poor...

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 1:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What message does the nomination of "Sarah Louise Heath Palin" send to Hillary Clinton for her 2012 ambitions?

"Aha senora, hit pause, Hill!"

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/04, 9:31am)


Post 3

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 7:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My guess is that Hillary will be running against a woman - and one that will beat her bad! If Obama wins, he had better stay very, very popular, because I think we just saw who he would have to beat to get a second term.

Post 4

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 11:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I still think that Obama will win. And when nothing changes, the Obamatons may become his most vicious critics. Whoever the next President is, he will be limited to one term. He will be limited to one term because he will do nothing about America's imperialism, and the wars will be even less popular than they are right now. Bush's war will become Obama's war or McCain's war.

There's a chance that the President may not even run at all in 2012. Even the unmatchable arrogance of Lyndon Johnson did not blind him to the reality of losing an election.

Who will the Obamatons support in 2012?

(Edited by Chris Baker on 9/04, 12:57pm)


Post 5

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 11:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think your Johnson parallel is a good one.  Remember how fatuously the liberals fell for him when he ran against Goldwater.  (You don't?  Well, it was much worse than what we're seeing with Obama.)  An even better parallel would be to imagine Kennedy living out two terms and ending in the same popular disgrace as Johnson.

Post 6

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 12:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I don't remember anything about the 1964 election. I was born in 1971.


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Friday, September 5, 2008 - 11:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here are the comments I received by email from a "single issue" voter:

Throughout my (short) career - say, the last 20 years, counting employment starting at age 16, I have never really thought of myself as a "career woman" or someone that is fighting for women's rights. The term "feminist" was never really a word I would have chosen to describe myself. Rather, just like any other man or woman, I went about my business and sought employment based on interest, financial need, etc. While there were a few (can count on one hand) occasions where an employer reminded me in an unnecessary manner, that I was a woman, for the most part I have been treated fairly. I never would have found myself voting for a woman, solely based on the fact that we share the same sex. The issues have always been more important. Financial stability, national security, etc.

Until today. Since the introduction of Sarah Palin, I am appalled at how the media and liberal left have done everything in their power to discredit her based on her "lack" of experience - which is ridiculous in the context of Obama's "experience" and based on the fact that she is a woman. How is it that H. Clinton was immune from this attack? How is it that a woman who's run a town, a state, and a family of 5 is somehow incapable because, oh, wait, she's only a "hockey mom"? How is it that in the last week, women, at the hands of the liberal left, have taken a 40 year leap backwards?

My dissatisfaction with both the left and the right, the democrats and republicans, as usual, would have lead me to vote 3rd party - the message that I am dissatisfied being more important that electing the lesser of two evils. Not this time. After the treatment of Palin this last week, I will vote McCain / Plain. I have become the dreaded "single issue" voter.

I recently saw a blogger described her as "Margaret Thatcher with five kids and a Klondike drawl" while Jonah Goldberg of the conservative "National Review" said: "She was put on this earth to do two things: kill caribou and kick butt. She's all out of caribou."

-G

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Saturday, September 6, 2008 - 7:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What message does the nomination of "Sarah Louise Heath Palin" send to Hillary Clinton for her 2012 ambitions?

"Aha senora, hit pause, Hill!"
Ah, Ted, I was playing the anagram game the other day.  "Sarah Palin" has a "Sharia Plan" you know.  And "Joe Biden" says "I need job".  Make of it what you will.  (BTW, my name is "alphanumeric", appropriate for a programmer I guess.)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Saturday, September 6, 2008 - 11:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
that one of Joe is so good - he DOES need a job, since been all his life on the dole...

Post 10

Monday, September 8, 2008 - 10:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Palin Designed to Distract Us From Bush - Arianna Huffington

Bush!?! Lord Help Us...

Post 11

Monday, September 8, 2008 - 11:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
OMG, that woman is really talented, she can lie FASTER than her mouth moves. She wraps inuendos in lies, and pushes them out as incomplete assertions - all held together with the spittle of an an angry woman busy working a con game.

I can just see her, face knotted up in anger and determination, busily duct-taping McCain and Bush together like some three-legged potato sack racer. "Stand still, damn it! You are staying fastened together till Obama gets a chance to win this race!" But Bush isn't running we say, and she says, "He is now! What do you think I'm doing with this tape?"

She does have a skinny point, that is about the similarities between Bush and McCain - be honest, there are some.

The con game she is trying so hard to hide is the fact that Palin makes everyone ask to see what Obama's change looks like. She showed us hers, why won't he show us what his looks like? And how come he is the only one that can say "change"? And it wouldn't have anything to do with his charisma isn't as alluring once you've seen her authenticity, would it?

"Damn it! Quit looking at her - see, Bush and McCain are trying to get apart" Sure enough, they are.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 12:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm not much for politics, but I'm really loving this campaign! It's truly fun to see the liberals get so tied up in their shorts. :-)

Also, I think that given Obama's track record and the platform of "change" the he has elected to run on, the choice of Sarah Palin may go down in the history books as the most effective, intelligent and disruptive piece of political strategy in the recent past - and possibly in the history of US politics. It has cut Obama off at the knees. Neither he or Biden can attack Palin's record of lack of experience without it blowing up in their face by highlighting Omaba's. They can't point to Obama's charisma or "leadership" ability without having to tacitly acknowledge Palin's. And besides, (getting back to the feminist angle), who wants to be seen as the bully that beats up on the girl! Yes, it's great fun.

On intrade.com, where people actually put their money where their mouth is, between 09-03-08 and 09-08-08 there was about an 8.3 point up-swing in the bets for McCain' presidency with a corresponding 12 point drop in Obama's numbers, or about a 20% shift! No wonder the media is pulling out all the stops.

Yes, it's great fun.

Regards,
--
Jeff

(Edited by C. Jeffery Small on 9/09, 12:38am)


Post 13

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 5:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And then there's the Newsweek fact checking on the Palin rumors.
 
We've been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain's running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.
Sam


Post 14

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 8:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Palin Eats Inuits?

From www.bostonherald.com:

...The national media are dominated by enthusiastic Obama supporters desperate to see Obama the Enlightened win the White House, heal our souls, reset our thermostats and shut down the Fox News Channel.

And that's precisely how their coverage of Palin comes across: desperate....

...The media has thrown every imaginable charge at Palin, from banning books to cheating her way to the much-coveted title of Miss Wasilla. Along the way, media outlets like The New York Times [NYT], MSNBC and The Boston Globe-Democrat have gotten story after story just plain wrong....

...That's bad for Obama because these errors and rumors make it tougher for his campaign to take on the legitimate issues of ideology and experience. It's hard to make charges about Palin's tax policy as a mayor stick when cable talk show kooks are screaming about rumors she killed and ate an Inuit as part of a radical Pentecostal religious ceremony.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/10, 7:42am)


Post 15

Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 4:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's okay to eat Inuits if you're desperately hungry -- with one caveat: it's okay to eat them if they don't have the concept of the individual or of individual rights.

:-)

Post 16

Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 8:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
When this gets out, it will mean the end of Sarah Palin's candidacy.  She has a brother-in-law named Michael Palin.  Here is a video of him venting his frustration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HooUO-PkG0Q


Post 17

Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 8:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This guy should win the nobel prize for derangment:

World Verdict Will Be Harsh If US Rejects Obama - J. Freedland, Guardian

But what of the rest of the world? This is the reaction I fear most. For Obama has stirred an excitement around the globe unmatched by any American politician in living memory. Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama.


Russia!?!

Post 18

Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 8:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Very funny, Glenn.

By the way, Sarah Palin's brother-in-law is named Michael Wooten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_palin



Post 19

Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 11:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ahh, the cover-ups begin.

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.