TheAgitator.com
Honestly
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008When did the right become a bunch of politically correct whiners, looking to interpret every comment in the way most likely to give offense? Jesus, what phonies. I think I’ve heard the word “sexist” come from the mouth of someone in a Brooks Brothers suit more times in the last two weeks than I have in my entire life.
Either Sarah Palin is a pit-bull, or she’s a fragile woman with delicate sensibilities whom we’ll all need to tiptoe around for the next four years.
She can’t be both.
She is whatever is most politically useful at the given moment (i.e. a politician).
I like the comment about McCain hiding behind Palin’s skirt. I actually made the same comment to my wife last night as this came across the news. We both thought it was a ridiculous thing for the McCain-Milf, er Palin campaign to bitch about.
McCain has used the lipstick on a pig remark himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMPYkNQlJMM
The faux-righteous indignation meter for this election is already pegged and we still have 2 more months of it left.
It’s almost as if neither side wants to discuss the drivel that comes out of the mouth of their candidate.
Yep. McCain has used it, Obama has used it before when talking about Iraq, and CNN reports that, “among others,” Dick Cheney, Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington state, Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Rep. John Mica of Florida and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado have used it. A McCain advisor wrote a book with it in the title.
And Obama followed it with another analogy about smelly fish. Maybe it was a misguided attempt at being folksy, but he was hardly calling Palin a pig.
But so long as they are at it, McCain’s campaign should accuse him of calling “Our Brave Men and Women In Uniform” pigs because of his Iraq analogy last year, and saying Palin stinks like a fish because of his next analogy.
The point is *NOT* to be offended. We’re talking about people who are incapable of offense.
The point is point out to women (also known as “swing voters”)who feel some sort of identification with Palin because she squoze out some retard crotchfruit that Obama doesn’t respect women/motherhood.
And you just know that they eat that shit up like so much blueberry buckle.
“retard crotchfruit”
I can’t wait to use that in a sentence.
As McNulty told Bodie in Season 4 of The Wire:
“Play in dirt, you get dirty.”
I am laughing so hard reading the faux-libertarian comment on Radleys’ blog.
Just a point of information here – I’m NOT voting for McCain, I AM voting for Palin,
and I’m definitely voting AGAINST Obama.
I’d love to vote for a real good candidate, but those are the choices I have (and no, the “other” candidates like Barr aren’t worth my throwing away a vote on them – I’d vote for a dead cat in order to defeat Obama).
Palin on the Republican ticket has revealed how morally confused the left is. What? All of a sudden you can’t pursue a career if you have children?
The left is a joke. Obama is so much toast. It is over.
I think we have a new winner for the “Stupidest Issue of the Campaign”.
When did the right become a bunch of politically correct whiners, looking to interpret every comment in the way most likely to give offense?
When it became politically advantageous. That’s the great thing about the Palin pick… More so than ever we’re seeing how neither party truly adheres to any consistent ideology. Dems worry that women can’t balance a career and a family; GOP’ers worry about sexism. Their attacks are based not on any actual indignation but rather a chance to take the other side down a peg. And if said attacks should totally contradict past attacks levied during the primary, or 2006, or 2004, who cares?
Maybe they have become a bunch of politically correct whiners because they are trying to court a set of ’swing’ voters that they view as a bunch of politically corrrect whiners. They want to appear hypersensitive to these non-offenses because they think that tact will attract the Hillary crowd. It really shows how little respect they have for voters in general, but especially the swing voters.
I am glad I am in ALabama where we still use paper scantron ballots. I am considering just whiping my ass with it and putting it in the machine. Seems as appropriate as voting for anybody on the damn thing.
If the democrats were not stupid, they would just be pointing out the contradictions in the Republicans nominating an inexperienced VP candidate when they had been bashing Obama for his lack of experience. Instead, they bash Palin and make themselves come off as big hypocrites. If they had just kept their mouths shut, Palin would have come off as the big dud she should be.
[...] She can’t be both.” – Radley Balko [...]
“Palin on the Republican ticket has revealed how morally confused the left is. What? All of a sudden you can’t pursue a career if you have children?”
And the right is no different. All of a sudden you can pursue a career if you have children. And out-of-wedlock children spawned by teenagers is now a blessing.
They’re all in the same ballpark; only the uniforms are different.
To rephrase:
For how many years did the Republicans watch this, that, or the other misstep turn into Howling Outrage?
Did you honestly think that they didn’t notice?
Back in the 80’s, James Watt even made a joke about the whole diversity thing. He was asked a question about one of his taskforces and he said “hey, I’ve got a black, a woman, two Jews, and a cripple!”
See! WE’RE DIVERSE!!!
Of course it caused one of the biggest hues and cries, like… ever.
I ask again: Do you think that the Republicans did not notice?
The republicans watched the weapons used against Clarence Thomas were not really picked up against Bill Clinton.
Do you think that the Republicans did not notice?
And now we have a situation where a statement that, certainly, has plausible deniability on the part of Obama is used against him.
And allow me to express surprise that you are expressing surprise.
Honestly, isn’t comparing a woman to a smelly fish much worse than calling her a pig?
Stupid question:
Is there such a thing as a dogwhistle?
You know, a statement that is chock full of plausible deniability but totally gives some totally red meat to the (evil/wicked) base?
Just a point of information here – I’m NOT voting for McCain, I AM voting for Palin…
I think it’s great that we’ve come to a point where we can refuse to vote for male, power-hungry, lying opportunists and instead vote for female, power-hungry, lying opportunists.
The main theme for this election is change. It reminds me of the big crusade for diversity in colleges a few years ago. It turned out that all they really wanted were people who think alike, but just look different.
Of course I could still vote for the “male, power-hungry, lying opportunist” named Obama.
And if the Democrats hadn’t made the mistake of not nominating the Hildebeast I could have voted for that “female, power-hungry, lying opportunist”.
As my old granddad said, “if you bomb Washington, you would kill a LOT of snakes”.
And Les, a lot of those snakes are Democrats.
This is so ridiculous. I don’t know if Obama was referring to Palin or not, but even if he was the proper interpretation of the analogy is that Palin is the “lipstick” that John McCain put on the “pig” (George Bush’s policies). There’s no honest argument to be made whereby Obama is calling Palin a pig. Did Obama call her lipstick? Maybe. If he did, is that sexist? I don’t know. Maybe. But how could anyone reasonably argue that he called her a pig? Maybe Bill Clinton would say that it depends on what the definition of “on” is?
“Either Sarah Palin is a pit-bull, or she’s a fragile woman with delicate sensibilities whom we’ll all need to tiptoe around for the next four years.”
I know how y’all around here feel about dogs getting shot, but if she’s a pit bull, there’s at least a chance she’ll be shot in a no-knock raid on the VP mansion. That’s gotta count for something.
/satire
“retard crotchfruit”
My band’s looking for a name. Good as any I guess. Rolls off the tongue.
Honestly, isn’t comparing a woman to a smelly fish much worse than calling her a pig?
Only if referring to fish tacos…
From what I saw, he was referring to John McCain as a pig and a stinky fish. Palin never came up in the speech. McCain just ran and hid behind her skirt.
Now the two have become some sort of amalgamation, indistinguishable from one another in their own campaign and the media as well. Note the wording… it’s never Obama/Biden yet it’s always McCain/Palin. It’s like his own staff consider him something of an afterthought in it’s own press releases.
It’s why I question whether or not McCain is in charge of his own campaign and generally doubt his faculties are still intact. Anytime he has to go off the talking points, he’s lost, absolutely lost. Basic things, how many homes he owns, the car he drives, whether or not it’s fair to have viagra covered under medical plans when contraception is not. This blank stare just washes over him… it’s frightening.
And Les, a lot of those snakes are Democrats.
Scott, never have I said anything about Democrats being better than Republicans because I don’t think they are.
It’s also a common response among Democrats, I’ve found, when you accurately label one of them as dishonest or incompetent for them to say something like, “Oh, well, I guess you think the Republicans are so much better!”
I just don’t understand why someone would proudly vote for a liar and opportunist, regardless of party affiliation.
I think we have a new winner for the “Stupidest Issue of the Campaign”.
This is going to be one of those things that when we look back, like one year in the future, we’ll roll our eyes and say “what were we thinking?”
Les,
Then I presume you don’t understand how those Obama and Hillary voters could proudly vote for them either, because BOTH of them are PROVEN liars.
I don’t happen to think Palin has gotten to the level of Obama or Hillary in the lying department, but after a few years in office who knows.
Obama of course is already clearly a congenital liar despite only being in Washington for less than 1 term as a Senator. But then crawling out of the infested swamps called Chicago politics I expect that.
And I didn’t say “I’m PROUDLY” voting for Palin. I am however happy to because McCain/Palin is the lesser of 2 evils.
Scott,
Considering Palin’s nonstop lying, could you point us toward Barack Obama’s enormous collection of vicious lies?
SIWIRP (Since I’m Writing in Ron Paul) I guess the thing I really want to see next in this “campaign” is the Sarah Palin Sex Tape.
I can’t stop chucking about “retard crotchfruit”.
Then I presume you don’t understand how those Obama and Hillary voters could proudly vote for them either, because BOTH of them are PROVEN liars.
You presume correctly. Actually, upon further thinking, I should say I do understand it on an emotional level, but not on a practical one. I can completely understand why people would want to vote for anyone other than someone who supported the Bush administration as much as McCain has.
And I didn’t say “I’m PROUDLY” voting for Palin.
Well, you did say
I’m NOT voting for McCain, I AM voting for Palin
so I assumed you weren’t doing so reluctantly or ashamedly.
I am however happy to because McCain/Palin is the lesser of 2 evils.
But that’s precisely how the pattern of lying, corrupt, inept governing continues. They don’t have to be honest or competent to receive your vote. They only have to be less dishonest and less incompetent. If most people refused to vote for dishonest, corrupt, incompetent politicians, politicians would be forced to clean up their acts.
Of course, I think that’s not likely to ever happen.
I read about the latest howling outrage, and all I can ever think of is the quote: “When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler.”
well then, les, since by your own admission politicians magically becoming clean and honest and pure is “not likely to ever happen”, why are you attacking the guy who – recognizing the same fact you just admitted to – the guy who is trying to pick the ‘least worst’ candidate?
seems to me the guy is making a reasoned, rational decision to choose the candidate/party that will cost him the least amount of money and/or pain.
and yet you take issue with him. odd, that. might the *real* issue be because his selection isn’t The Chosen, Anointed One? i’ve noticed that seems to happen here a lot. like the -21 score for the post in which it’s pointed out that “the left is a joke”.
So Radley, where’s the post about the Democrats (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp_2Cw4RH1c) comparing Obama to Jesus (the community organizer) and Palin to Pontius Pilate (the governor) ……… I would answer of course:
At least Christ knew when life began and Pontius Pilate thought the issue above his pay grade.
This election gets more ridiculous by the minute …..
well then, les, since by your own admission politicians magically becoming clean and honest and pure is “not likely to ever happen”, why are you attacking the guy who – recognizing the same fact you just admitted to – the guy who is trying to pick the ‘least worst’ candidate?
I wasn’t aware I was “attacking” scott. I thought I was disagreeing/conversing with him. Hopefully, he’s not so overly-sensitive as that.
The reason I feel it’s “not likely to ever happen” is because I don’t think enough people will disengage from the process, so devoted are they to “left/right” ideologies and party affiliations. That doesn’t mean I won’t disagree with people who vote for the lesser of two evils (some of my best friends do). And simply because one doubts something will happen doesn’t mean one doesn’t hope it will.
seems to me the guy is making a reasoned, rational decision to choose the candidate/party that will cost him the least amount of money and/or pain.
Maybe he is, and it’s perfectly reasonable and rational for me to point out that there’s no evidence that the Republicans are more fiscally responsible or less authoritarian than the Democrats.
and yet you take issue with him. odd, that. might the *real* issue be because his selection isn’t The Chosen, Anointed One?
I have no intention of voting for Obama and there’s no rational reason to assume that pointing out the dishonesty and incompetency of Republicans automatically means I support a Democrat.
Les, when someone states that “the left is a joke” on a post talking about how the candidates for the major party of the right are taking a common American idiom and saying that it’s an insult to all working women everywhere, I find it hard to believe the guy is making a reasoned, rational decision so much as a knee-jerk reaction. It’s possible to support McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden for rational reasons based on policy, but in this election I see one side trying to run an issues-based campaign and one side trying to gin up the culture wars and dirty the other guy up to the point where they’re simply viewed as the lesser of two evils.
It’s sad that we finally got a politician who was willing to run a positive campaign based on issues and he ended up against the guy who runs on “I was a POW and am honorable, and let me tell you what a piece of trash my opponent is.” Obama speaks about how important Habeus Corpus is (see: 4th Amendment, one of those things that is important to libertarians), and it doesn’t merit a response from the people who supported indefinite detention at the will of the supreme executive officer of our government; he uses one idiom about lipstick and pigs and it’s all over the news because apparently he’s a misogynist. Stirring up a culture war gets us no closer to being able to effect libertarian policies within our government, because we’re too busy fighting the other team to fight for our ideals.
Just sayin’.
And by Les, I mean xyz123. Hooray for allergy meds. :(
It is a stupid issue, but of course he’s calling her a pig. It’s a takeoff on the pitbull wearing lipstick comment from her speech.
Of course he’s calling her a pig? I don’t follow. A simple reading of the FULL quote is all it takes to disprove that:
“John McCain says he’s about change, too — except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics,” Mr. Obama told his supporters here. “That’s just calling the same thing something different.”
With a laugh, he added: “You can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change; it’s still going to stink after eight years.”
It’s perfectly clear that the “pig” is the policies of George Bush (which Obama is insinuating that John McCain is dressing up with lipstick to present as something new).
How can anyone argue this? The context is perfectly clear from the full quote.
It is still very possible that Obama is *referencing* Palin, but the proper interpretation of the analogy is that Palin is the *lipstick* that John McCain is putting on the pig.
Again, it is perfectly possible that Obama made that statement with Palin in mind. It’s perfectly possible that he chose the lipstick on a pig analogy to make people think of Palin. But a reading of the quote shows that if this is the case, Palin is clearly the lipstick and not the pig.
She has no problem with her state taking in the most federal dollars than any other state in the union, which is pretty greedy. Sounds like an oinker to me. Then again, it certainly is Obama calling the kettle black.
From the Orange County Register, 9/10/08:
“John McCain took a risk in picking little-known Alaska Gov. sarah Palin as a running mate, but now the campaign’s playing it safer. She’s sticing to a greatest hits version of her convention speech on the campaign trail and steering clear of questions until she’s comfortable enough for a hand-picked interviewer later this week.”
In other words, this moose-hunting, creationist-believing hockey mom who mocked the Dems and particularly Obama for his record of service has suddenly become Weenie Woman, hiding behind John McCain’s pantsleg and refusing to come out until a nice, safe interviewer can be found to lob softball questions to her.
Feh.
The reaction from Obama’s audience would only make sense if they interpreted his use of the term “lipstick” as referring to the stuff that Sarah Palin wears. Perhaps McCain was supposed to be the pig, wearing Sarah Palin as “lipstick”, but it’s clear that Obama was calling at least one of his opponents a pig.
I’m really doubt that John McCain and Sarah Palin is going to storm off crying because Barack Obama called them names. On the other hand, it is quite proper for them to matter-of-factly inform the public of the name-calling because it demonstrates Obama’s poor judgment. Obama’s only plausible hope for victory is to recapture many of the fence-sitters who have gone into the McCain/Palin camp. Casting public insults at McCain/Palin may help rally supporters, but at the cost of alienating the moderate voters he needs to win back.
Obama is prone to bad judgment when under pressure. A disastrous characteristic in a President.
The Republicrats were whiners from the moment George II “won” the 2000 election. Gore had every legal right to challenge the vote count, and they whined about that. They then got control of the House and Senate, and still they kept whining about “Liberal media” and “liberal bias.” They’re not only sore losers, they’re sore winners. The convention just continued that trend, with Giuliani and Palin mocking Obama’s record of service as community organizer in one of the roughest parts of Chicago and his record in the Congress. I wish they’d just take their damn ball and go home already. Stop bothering us adults with your whining bullshit.
Republicans: They may be smarter than 5th graders, but they sure do act like them.
He didn’t call Palin a “pig.” He called the proposal “a pig dressed up in lipstick.” Context, people, context!!!
Les,
“But that’s precisely how the pattern of lying, corrupt, inept governing continues. They don’t have to be honest or competent to receive your vote. They only have to be less dishonest and less incompetent. If most people refused to vote for dishonest, corrupt, incompetent politicians, politicians would be forced to clean up their acts.
Of course, I think that’s not likely to ever happen.”
I guess I just shouldn’d vote then, because none fo the candidates are perfect.
I guess I just shouldn’d vote then, because none fo the candidates are perfect.
This is a terrible way to argue your point. Where did I say a candidate should be “perfect?” No where, actually. I said I didn’t think people should vote for candidates who are incompetent and/or dishonest.
Being competent does not equal perfection. Being honest does not equal perfection. It’s not responsible to expect perfection from any human being. It’s also not responsible to excuse and tolerate dishonesty and incompetency from our public servants simply because no human is perfect. These are not radical ideas.
After the way Hillary voters felt she was treated during the primary and dismissively calling a female reporter “sweetie” anyone with any sense (and who watched the Palin acceptance speech) would have stayed as far away from a colloquialism with the word “lipstick” in it as they could. He’s quickly losing the white female vote and every time he, or his supporters, bash Palin he loses another woman voter.
This election is over and I want you all to remember I called it in november of last year.
Sam,
Just a few of Obama’s documented LIES -
He lied about not filling out a questionaire in which he said he supported banning handguns (a staffer confirms that the questionaire was filled out by him).
He lied about his relationship with Ayers (just someone who lives in the neighborhood). oops, Ayers launched Obama’s political career with fundraiser for Obama in Ayers house.
He lied about his intention to participate in the campaign finance system (not that I support that). He abondoned that idea as soon as he thought he could raise mor money privately.
It’s not hard to find more good examples of Obama’s shameless lying.
Scott,
My god, you’ve got him now! Especially compared to Palin’s desire to waste millions of taxpayers’ dollars. Good job you wildly inconsistent “libertarian.”
Les,
“This is a terrible way to argue your point.”
What was your point? Someone is going to be elected, I only can vote for who is on the ticket, I (and most people) don’t have any real way to guarantee the quality of the ticket.
Don’t forget you said “so I assumed you weren’t doing so reluctantly or ashamedly.
So I guess I can assume your meanings too.
And “Maybe he is, and it’s perfectly reasonable and rational for me to point out that there’s no evidence that the Republicans are more fiscally responsible or less authoritarian than the Democrats.”
What, you think I don’t KNOW that. Nowhere in this discussion have I suggested that I view the Republicans as markedly better than their opponents, I’ve said they are the lesser of 2 evils.
Oh, and I’m not making my decision based upon my emotions, as are a GREAT MANY Obama supporters. Many of them are making the decision to vote AGAINST McCain because of their EMOTIONAL response to the Bush years as you pointed out.
I, on the other hand, think about what the candidates say and do. NOTHING about McCain/Palin affects me emotioanally enough to make me vote for them. Its my analysis of the opposing tickets that makes me vote AGAINST Obama.
I’ve noticed that you don’t “attack” Obama supporters, only those like me who offer some justification for McCain/Palin. One might suspect there is a lot more truth in
“and yet you take issue with him. odd, that. might the *real* issue be because his selection isn’t The Chosen, Anointed One?”
than you’re willing to admit.
Sam,
Obama (and Biden too) both voted twice, TWICE!, for the bridge to nowhere.
Obama has requested a million $’s of earmarks for every “working” day he has been a Senator (thank God he was mostly out campaigning instead) and you think Palin wants to waste money.
I notice you don’t challenge Obama’s lies.
I guess you’re another that thinks Obama is the “chosen one”, regardless of the facts.
scott,
What was your point? Someone is going to be elected, I only can vote for who is on the ticket, I (and most people) don’t have any real way to guarantee the quality of the ticket.
But you don’t HAVE to vote for anyone. You certainly don’t HAVE to vote Republican or Democrat.
Don’t forget you said “so I assumed you weren’t doing so reluctantly or ashamedly.
So I guess I can assume your meanings too.
Let’s review. You said you were “happy” to vote for Palin. I assumed that meant you “weren’t doing so reluctantly or ashamedly.” How does that not make sense?
I said one shouldn’t vote for dishonest and/or incompetent candidates. You assumed I meant one should only vote for “perfect” candidates. As I explained above, that makes no sense at all.
But your larger point is taken, in that we shouldn’t assume what each other is saying because we both know what happens when we assume. ;)
Oh, and I’m not making my decision based upon my emotions, as are a GREAT MANY Obama supporters. Many of them are making the decision to vote AGAINST McCain because of their EMOTIONAL response to the Bush years as you pointed out.
That said, I hope we can agree that most voters, Democrats and Republicans, vote based on emotion; reflexively, instead of reflectively.
I, on the other hand, think about what the candidates say and do.
Well, that’s fine. If you’ve looked at all the times McCain has changed his positions and then lied about it, if you’ve thought about the hypocrisy and dishonesty displayed by Palin, and if you’ve considered that they both support an administration that has been demonstrably dishonest and utterly incompetent, then, hey, what can one say? Vote away!
I’ve noticed that you don’t “attack” Obama supporters, only those like me who offer some justification for McCain/Palin.
I think you’re probably right about that. That’s because I haven’t encountered anyone here attempting to defend Obama’s disingenuous actions or dismiss them with, “Well, what about McCain?” type arguments. Believe me, I do that enough with my friends and family.
That said, I do honestly believe that Obama is the lesser of two evils. He wants to grow government, but, unlike McCain and Palin, he doesn’t pretend otherwise. Still, like I said, I have no intention of voting for him and hardly look at him as “The Chosen.”
However, with their support of the Bush administration, McCain and Palin show a contempt for states’ rights and due process (i.e. The Constitution), not to mention a tacit approval of a war that was sold on false pretenses and executed with all the incompetency and corruption we’ve come to expect from large government projects. I understand big government types voting for Obama. I don’t understand small government types voting for McCain.
Do any of those who minused me have a counterargument? Or are you just mad that I called the Republicrats what they are?
I guess you’re another that thinks Obama is the “chosen one”, regardless of the facts.
These references to the Chosen One are funny coming from people who habitually bend over for every authority figure.
Les,
“Well, that’s fine. If you’ve looked at all the times McCain has changed his positions and then lied about it, if you’ve thought about the hypocrisy and dishonesty displayed by Palin, and if you’ve considered that they both support an administration that has been demonstrably dishonest and utterly incompetent, then, hey, what can one say? Vote away!”
So, McCain/Palin are dishonest, but Obama/Biden are not? As I pointed out to Sam, Obama is a PROVEN liar. McCain, a little more slippery about it but maybe he too is a liar (perhaps even of the same scale, though I don’t think so). So, I have to judge between the 2 tickets and decide which of the 2 is the lesser of the evils.
You are right of course, I don’t have to vote FOR anyone, I don’t have to vote at all. And, because I’m in AZ, that likely wouldn’t sway the election as I imagine McCain/Paliln will carry AZ.
However, if millions of us aren’t who aren’t that happy with McCain sit out the vote, we could end up with someone who we judge is worse. Thats called cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Lastly,
“That’s because I haven’t encountered anyone here attempting to defend Obama’s “.
The commentary on Radleys posts are running pretty heavily against McCain (Radley is pretty fair about his coverage, though he leans towards Obama too though recognizing that Obama will likely dissapoint in office). I haven’t seen you point out that Obama is just as bad (at least, and in my opinion much more the LIAR) as McCain, thereore I “assume” you’re not attacking Obama supporters here because you secretly prefer him, despite your protestations to the contrary.
But what I think is most funny about the commentary on these posts is that the supposed “libertarians” who respond are heavily for Obama, despite that it is obvious he is no less a fan of big government than anyone else, and clearly not concerned with any libertarian ideas other than being anti-war.
Thats why I originally referred to them as faux-libertarians.
This whole debate is as phony as a Gucci bag made out of a sow’s ear.
So, I’ll give my own spin. I am voting for Obama not because I am particularly thrilled about him, but rather because his behavior is bound to be more constrained and constitutional than McCain. Four reasons:
1)His campaign has said they would pursue criminal charges against the lawbreakers in the current admin. Thus, at least they think that the President can break the law. Further, Obama’s answers pertaining to the powers of the President are also much more constrained than the vague and open ended interpretation that McCain has given to such questions.
2)Right wing protest groups are much more effective than left wing ones. For instance, when Bush sent in his private army Blackwater to snatch guns from hurricane victims during Katrina, the NRA was silent, and then tried to (laughably and despicably) blame local Democrats for the actions of a mercenary force under FEMA contract. Obama would not be able to get away with any sort of gun confiscation, it would trigger a revolt. As we’ve seen, Republicans can get away with this sort of behavior consistently and repeatedly.
3) Racism works for the Constitution in this case. A lot of childish people will be picking apart Obama’s every action as President, and so there will be much wider alarm about unconstitutional BS than there would be under a white Republican president, “cause he’s one of us, don’t cha know?”
4) McCain has all of those warmongering, constitution shredding neocons behind him, and those people are crazy-cakes.
McCain has all but promised to give us more tyranny, why would you even think of voting for him, or that spendthrift “pray the gay away” skirt that he is hiding behind? Any so-called libertarian that would vote for McCain given the facts on the ground should surrender their political identification and put on a black armband.
Li,
Your kind of ranting is simply not worth answering.
You mean the sort of rant that presents salient points, perceives the situation outside the false left/right dichotomy, and thoroughly eviscerates your argument?
Indeed.
uh Li,
I will note that one of the points in your rant is completely wrong.
The NRA sued the City of NO (remember it was Nagin, a Democrat, mayor of NO who gave the order) within days of their announcing the siezure of guns from law-abiding citizens. They got an immediate injunction, stopped the city, kept fighting, forced the city to admit that they had indeed confiscated guns (they had been denying that any were) and finally got the judge to order the guns returned.
Since that point pretty much shows you don’t even care about basic facts there is no point in dealing with the other foolishiness you trot out.
Continue to worship your “chosen one” Li, I think he’s toast. But if by some chance he does get elected (btw, did you see the video of Biden admitting that Hillary would have been a better choice for VP? It looks like Obama failed his first test, picking a good VP) just remember he may not turn out like you think. Be carefull what you wish for.
Oh, so Nagin was ordering Blackwater around, while he was so out of touch he couldn’t find his own ass? The NOLA police organized a gun confiscation when most of them fled themselves, and those that remained didn’t have communication or supplies? Doesn’t that seem somewhat implausible to you?
And what did I say that implied worship? I am confused.
Oh well, it appears that our perception of reality has diverged to such an extent that debate is impossible. Do have a nice day!
As an olive branch, I think I might have identified the source of your confusion; after the federalization of the NO security, it was the police supe Edwin Compass that announced the “no one but security can be armed” policy. But everything I have read suggested that order came from (variously) FEMA or HS, which would be consistent with US Martials and Blackwater mercenaries carrying out that order. After all, I don’t think that anyone in NO was high enough on the org chat to order that, let alone the gun confiscations that were reported to have happened in Mississippi.. .
scott -
And Les, a lot of those snakes are Democrats.
And damn near the rest are republicans. Why the hell anyone would want to vote for either party is beyond me. There really isn’t a lot of difference between on lying sack of shit and another. None of them have the interest of our country in mind – they are motivated first by personal gain, then by party gain – a couple may put the good of the U.S. somewhere behind the above, but if they are few enough.
So, McCain/Palin are dishonest, but Obama/Biden are not?
Absolutely they are (especially Biden) and that’s why (as I’ve said again and again) I’m not voting for them.
As I pointed out to Sam, Obama is a PROVEN liar. McCain, a little more slippery about it but maybe he too is a liar (perhaps even of the same scale, though I don’t think so).
If you’re saying “maybe” about McCain being a liar, then you haven’t looked into it nearly as hard as you’ve looked into Obama’s honesty, which implies a partisan reflexiveness on your part.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&feature=related
thereore I “assume” you’re not attacking Obama supporters here because you secretly prefer him, despite your protestations to the contrary.
I don’t “attack” supporters. If I “attack” anything, it’s arguments. And, like I said, since I’ve not seen anyone here make arguments to excuse Obama’s questionable actions or policies or statements, there’s nothing to attack. But I will attack arguments that Obama is worse than McCain because I don’t believe the facts bear that out. And if I was forced to choose between the two men, I’d choose Obama. There’s no need to keep that fact secret. If someone was to argue that Biden was worse than McCain, I’d be less inclined to argue against that, though I think it’s a toss-up.
And I’ll add if you look at the recent attack-ads that McCain “approved,” they’re utterly dishonest. From the most recent sex-ed one to the one about Obama visiting troops in Europe, they’ve been condemned by everyone except hardcore Republican loyalists. Just as the Bush administration’s actions in regards to the run-up and execution of the war in Iraq, warrant-less wiretaps, due process, and signing statements etc. have been condemned by everyone except hardcore Republican loyalists.
It makes sense, even (or especially) for libertarians, to oppose the candidacy of a man who has approved of such a dishonest, inept, and power-hungry administration.
Yeah. Thought not.
Question: What experience does she (Palin) have in the field of national experience?
McCain: Energy. She knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America.
I think it’s incredible that he’s able to speak English and make so very little sense.
For instance, when Bush sent in his private army Blackwater to snatch guns from hurricane victims during Katrina, the NRA was silent, and then tried to (laughably and despicably) blame local Democrats for the actions of a mercenary force under FEMA contract.
As already noted: this did not happen.
Li, your version of history is so factually incorrect that your following points can’t even be addressed.
[...] shows how much he’s sold his soul to…the Christians. 10. Sexism and Hypocrisy. As Balko said, “When did the right become a bunch of politically correct whiners….Either Sarah Palin [...]