Post #274,849
12/5/06 11:44:01 AM
12/5/06 11:45:03 AM
|
Okay.,
Tell me, what, exactly makes Obama appealing to you? What in his short voting record is impressive? What has he done that makes you think he is qualified to be President of the US? What has he done that gives you any hope that he has the ability to clean up the colossal mess that the poor, unfortunate who will follow the Grand Idiot™ in office will face?
I'm serious. I've yet to meet an Obama supporter who can explain to me his appeal. Mind, being photogenic and able to read a good speech doesn't count in my book.
bcnu, Mikem
It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
Edited by mmoffitt
Dec. 5, 2006, 11:45:03 AM EST
|
Post #274,856
12/5/06 11:57:29 AM
|
you could make the same argument for bill clinton
when he ran. Or dubbya thanx, bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #274,858
12/5/06 12:02:28 PM
|
Clinton.
Which, btw, I was no big fan for during the 2000 primaries. My guy then was Jerry Brown. But at least Clinton had some executive office experience in a state where, unlike Texas, the position actually has some power.
Obama is a cause celeb with the Nintendo generation, but the Nintendo generation never amounts to anything in a general election - ask McGovern about that. I'm sure there were some reasons that Clinton supporters had in the primaries in 2000. But I have *never* heard *any* reason for supporting Obama other than some analog of "he's tan, articulate and a new generation." What little there is of his record to look at is not very appealing, as I've pointed out before.
bcnu, Mikem
It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
|
Post #274,860
12/5/06 12:11:56 PM
|
I think he's still riding that speech he gave
at the convention. His lasting first impression.
[link|http://www.blackbagops.net|Black Bag Operations Log]
[link|http://www.objectiveclips.com|Artificial Intelligence]
[link|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html|Scrutinizer]
|
Post #275,078
12/7/06 1:04:47 PM
|
He's gotta be a fav of the Repos.
Because if he is the Democratic candidate in 2008, the Republicans can run Mickey Mouse (again?) and the White House will be theirs. And the Democrats that voted Obama will deserve it...richly.
bcnu, Mikem
It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
|
Post #274,871
12/5/06 2:10:19 PM
|
He's from Illinois. So am I.
And if that isn't enough to be for him, I looked at his record as a state senator. Anyone who [link|http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200408/ai_n9409702|Human Events] comes out against, I'm for. You can also look at how interest groups rate him at [link|http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=BS030017|Project Vote Smart]. And the kicker for me is that Dick Durbin wants him to run. Anything the Big D wants is fine with me.
----------------------------------------- Draft Kucinich [link|http://www.kucinich.us/bio.php|now].
|
Post #275,079
12/7/06 1:09:38 PM
|
Interesting.
In my view, abortion should not be a legal issue. But the default issue is abortion at one of your links. I found this of some interest:
1997-2000 On the votes that the Illinois Federation for Right to Life considered to be the most important in 1997-2000, Senator Obama voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
But, then, ...
2002 On the votes that the Illinois Federation for Right to Life considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Obama voted their preferred position 50 percent of the time.
So, as time passes, he's moving toward the Right to Life club's POV. That's encouraging?
bcnu, Mikem
It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
|
Post #275,080
12/7/06 1:23:29 PM
|
Kunstler makes a decent point.
[link|http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary19.html|The Moral High Ground]: [...]
White America has for many years dedicated itself to sucking up its own discomfort. When someone like Michael Richards blunders beyond the moral high ground and reveals the anger and resentment underneath this stoical mask of tolerance for "diversity," white America freaks out and rushes to anathemize it. White America does not want its discomfort to show, so it sucks up everything from the Tawana Brawley affair to the OJ Simpson verdict to the televised daily doings of Snoop and Fitty (which white children emulate as fun behavior).
White America does not want racial conflict -- and understandably so -- and will humble itself to any extent to avoid it. To some degree, Hip-Hop is black America's reminder to white America that there are a lot of heavily armed and vicious young men out there who might call off their incessant partying and kick off a national scale gang war. This is white America's worst nightmare, much worse than Iraq, or global warming, or peak oil. This is also, by the way, the reason that white America idolizes Barack Obama. He is the first figure on the scene in thirty years who offers the promise of leading all of America back to the moral high ground. Rational Idealism in politics would be a really nice change. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #275,082
12/7/06 2:00:19 PM
|
s/Rational/Utopian
More than twenty years ago a woman was on the ticket for Vice President (not the lead dog). Back then, *that* was too much for a good bit of Murica. I was astonished to hear how many people (particularly women) say things like, "I'd really like to vote for Mondale, but he's got that woman on the ticket. What if anything happens to him? I don't think we're ready for this." Pshaw, you say. That was 20 years ago. Do you really think that the overwhelming majority of voters - that'd be WASPS - have become so progressive in just two decades that now they not only could elect a woman as Vice President but could actually vote for a black man to be President? (I know, I know, he's mixed race, but he's perceived by many as Black).
bcnu, Mikem
It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
|
Post #275,084
12/7/06 2:28:52 PM
12/8/06 5:20:12 PM
|
It depends on who[m] he's running against.
Major changes in politics have often occurred with someone who won by a whisker. I have little doubt that a race with Obama running would likely be close, but I don't think that it's out of the question that he could win.
Remember that Clinton only beat Dole in the popular vote by 8.5 points in 1996.
I think Obama could beat just about anyone on [link|http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08rep.htm|this] list. Giuliani has a lot of baggage, and McCain's let his "conservative" persona come to the fore.
Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #275,179
12/8/06 2:10:26 PM
|
Obama has no chance.
And it would be an electoral landslide for his opponent whomever the opponent was. Pat Robertson could run against Obama and beat him. Wouldn't be close. See, you take a poll and white people don't want to admit that with the curtain drawn, they'd never be able to vote for a Black man for President, so they lie about it in the poll. They actually like to think they could vote for a Black man, but the truth is the overwhelming majority of them would pull the lever for the other guy when no one was looking.
It's not just that I'm from the South that makes me say this. Some of the most disingenuous people on the subject of race I've ever met are from the North and Mid West. Obama might, *might* be able to carry California. And that's only because California is a white minority state. But even in California, I doubt SERIOUSLY Obama would win. All you have to do is look at Tom Bradley. No way he should have lost an election to the Dukester. But there it is. Bradley was a Black man running for Governor.
If the Dem's really don't want to get the White House in 2008, Obama or Hillary will be their candidate.
bcnu, Mikem
It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
|
Post #275,198
12/8/06 5:35:20 PM
|
agreed thats why all the repo talking heads are pushing them
I have it on good authority that Hannity prayer every night is "please give us one more chance, let hillary win the nomination." thanx, bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #275,211
12/8/06 8:11:05 PM
|
I don't think it is as bad as you say
I don't think the racism situation is as bad as you say. I think Obama could be Robertson for instance, if Robertson where given a chance to rave in public about how everybody who doesn't agree with his specific type of Christianity is an evil devil follower.
But I would agree that people who think it wouldn't be an issue or would help him overall are simply wrong. Obama's best shot right now is serving 8 years as VP first. Getting people used to seeing and hearing him will overcome the majority of the disadvantage being black brings him.
Jay
|
Post #275,217
12/8/06 9:17:04 PM
|
ask some black folk
His dad is from Africa, his mom white american. You might be surprised. thanx, bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #275,706
12/13/06 4:21:53 PM
|
Having the middle name Hussein alone will finish him.
Given the ignorance of the sheeple, can you picture the negative ads?
Alex
When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. -- Sinclair Lewis
|
Post #275,709
12/13/06 4:37:07 PM
|
Well, there is that... :-/
|
Post #275,721
12/13/06 6:20:11 PM
|
More to the point
He has vowed to run a purely postive campaign - no attack ads, no negativity, plans to "rise above" any mud slinging. Sounds wonderful. Except that swiftboating works.
[link|http://www.blackbagops.net|Black Bag Operations Log]
[link|http://www.objectiveclips.com|Artificial Intelligence]
[link|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html|Scrutinizer]
|
Post #275,750
12/13/06 11:25:53 PM
|
Don't forget Obama rhymes with Osama.
I think the guy is electable but don't want to argue it. I think that currently, almost any Democrat is electable. The reasons I think this are simple.
1. Iraq 2. Iraq 3. Iraq
And then there's Iraq.
C'mon, people realize they were scammed. They don't like being scammed. You've already seen some of the backlash in the last election wherein any seat that changed party was a gain for the Democrats. Not a single pickup for the Republicans.
I will be vastly surprised if the Democrats don't win the next Presidential election. And a metric buttload more seats in congress.
----------------------------------------- Draft Kucinich [link|http://www.kucinich.us/bio.php|now].
|
Post #275,998
12/17/06 6:20:25 PM
|
Good on ya.
At my age, I am almost beyond surprise. Looks like you're still young enough to be surprised - and you will be, in 2008. ;0)
bcnu, Mikem
It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
|
Post #276,061
12/18/06 7:39:43 AM
|
I hope I never get that old
It's my childlike sense of wonder that allows me to talk about the weather. Again.
----------------------------------------- Draft Kucinich [link|http://www.kucinich.us/bio.php|now].
|
Post #276,080
12/18/06 3:36:58 PM
|
Ha! Just noticed your sig change. Excellent choice!
I saw him on CSPAN. Another tilt at the windmills, but oh what fun! Certainly would make for the finest First Lady we've had since Rosalyn. And a Brit, too!
bcnu, Mikem
It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
|
Post #276,078
12/18/06 3:16:00 PM
|
Here's your recipe script for___Surprise!!
1) It's (still...) a (complete) Mystery why anything is 'here'. At all.
2) There is (apparently..) Maxwell's Demon (for those who believe in statistics.)
3) There IS (assuredly) Cosmic Humour. (She's fond of the Brit speeling?)
4) Applying mathematical/logical ideas re causality to the jelloware imagineering of the species is (ImHO) a fool's errand - it's a conceit to imagine that we possess any skillz at the umm, extrapolation-of-events?
Mix that all together and ya gets.. for just One example:
But for the noir/brummagem side of Cosmic Humour.?. we almost "lost" The Berk / Shrub / Village Idiot ... ... to a pretzel!!
Rest case. HTH, etc.
|
Post #275,190
12/8/06 4:43:41 PM
|
Whom, by the Great Rotating Rod!
Here's a tip: Whenever you're in doubt about whether it should be "who" or "whom", just replace it with "he" or "him". Here, that (both variants) would look clumsy, because "who" is more flexible than "he" and works to tie two disparate sub-clauses together into a sentence in a way that "he" can't... but if we split it up into its constituent parts and do the replacement separately for each, then it works. So: "It depends on he", or "It depends on him"?
"He's running against he", or "He's running against him"? In both cases, it's the version with the 'm' at the end that looks best, isn't it? And therefore, it should be the version of "who" that has an 'm' at the end, too: "It depends on who m he's running against." HTH!
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
|
Post #275,194
12/8/06 5:19:52 PM
|
Ack!
Thanks!
Cheers, Scott. (Who knew this stuff at one time, but has forgotten it due to lack of use.)
|
Post #275,258
12/9/06 4:05:36 AM
|
Let's do ___ 'It's me!'
Convoluted Simplifications LLC Div. Confounding Contradictions Gmbh
But as to who(m) - I too never/rarely try to recollect the mechanical parsing rulez of eons back. "How does it scan" - isn't precise, but properly pulses 'all experience'. I'm sure I never 'memorized' all those blackboard parsing exercises; that's just manna for compulsive taxonomists. I must just remember the resultant engrams. I think !?
Then too, if one recalls Subject/Object .. that correlates with the transitive or intransitive case of [the meaning of is.] But not so simply, with only one to Be extant. Espa\ufffdol is saner, with ser and estar to obviate most vagaries of Being.. stuff
Here's a test of your eclectic amassing of English weirdage of the Ages -
It is I, Digby O'Dell the {friendly} undertaker [1] -VS- It's me.
I think there's no punctilious way to parse these, without separate verb-forms. I can ~take It's me, which is by now std. usage, I wot - but prefer, It is I. If you reverse the order, as one should be able to to do, in intransitive case:
It is me <-> Me is it. -VS- It is I <-> I is it, though {sigh} you'd really say, I am it/I am that (-person) {ugh}
Easier, when queried about a definite, Are you he? -- clearly you reply, I am he (not him) etc.
Too many words! about a couple simple idioms. You're really not 'acting upon' the putative object here, ergo I aver that Engl. would be much saner with ser/estar. We. must. revise back to... beyond Beowulf.
er, Maybe 'scan' Is the better working version. :-\ufffd
[link|http://www.old-time.com/bytes/index.html| [1]] 2/3 way down list - and you can Hear them. Ghosts... Rilly too early for you, '40s radio - but then again.. The Shadow Knows
BTW - that exact phrase in "" got 3 Google hits! (I have managed [1], a few times)
|
Post #275,262
12/9/06 8:16:28 AM
|
"Myself" seems to be replacing "me" and "I" these days.
I cringe most times that I hear people saying "myself", because it seems wrong to my ears in almost all cases. But it seems to be working its way into popular American English as a single word to replace "me/I/" in cases where people have forgotten or never learned the traditional rules.
E.g.
Laura and I are going to the ethnic market to pick up some octopus, pig tongues, lamb lungs, and dripping fungus to make pot of stew. Do you want to come along? There's almost nothing better than home-made stew. Mmmm Good! Who's coming along with Laura and me?
becomes
Laura and myself ... Who's coming along with Laura and myself?
</skin crawling>
Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #275,268
12/9/06 10:41:27 AM
|
You and Bio are doing what? :)
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. (Herm Albright)
|
Post #275,274
12/9/06 11:07:43 AM
|
No, it doesn't involve jazz hands.
|
Post #275,312
12/9/06 9:28:00 PM
|
Well.. 'ter' never caught on for 'him-or-her'
- though the idea was intensely logic-al.
May the same fate await the 'myself'marker.
Proper usage: ?
I (when myself) probably wouldn't have mistaken that blasting cap for a foil-wrapped caramel, you see. Alas, the President, clearly hurrying to a peace march, Decided to bite down before..
|
Post #275,085
12/7/06 3:23:11 PM
|
where is he from
"To some degree, Hip-Hop is black America's reminder to white America that there are a lot of heavily armed and vicious young men out there who might call off their incessant partying and kick off a national scale gang war. This is white America's worst nightmare" dont think so, to dam many of them cant wait to get it started. thanx, bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #275,250
12/9/06 1:37:19 AM
|
Wow, that's a first
I've never seen anyone disagree with Kunstler on the grounds that he wasn't sufficiently pessimistic.
===
Kip Hawley is still an idiot.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #275,256
12/9/06 2:40:06 AM
|
From many years ago . . .
. . a black leader's (I've forgotten which one) answer to the call for revolution, "What good would it do us to go bang! bang! when they'll go ratatatatatat! and Kaboom! Kaboom!?".
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|