First, some snark... I think we'll have a gay president before a black one... we might have already put a W in that column if you extrapolate from the Jeff Gannon story. Seriously though, I think a study was done that concluded if you don't win the Presidency within 14 years of your emergence on the national stage you won't win the Presidency. Obama's clock is ticking. However, I just don't see the country electing a black until the next generation... 15-30 years from now... and contrary to what I just said about the 14 years, I think Obama might prove the exception and might be able to hang on until then. I'd love to be wrong (assuming Obama and not Condi), but my head is telling me this is the case. As far as 2008 goes, I think the country is so screwed up and the damage so severe to our national fabric that I think Gore is the only one out there with a chance of doing more than treading water. Gore/Obama 2008. If not VP, I'd love to see Obama do a stint at State. He'd be the perfect guy to start reestablishing our standing in the international community.
As I've said before, I disagree with the idea that the country won't elect a black president. Also, if Obama's clock is ticking it only just began. He emerged on the national stage in 2004 -- if that, as he remains unknown to the majority of Americans. But even if you start the clock on Obama in 04, he's got three elections left to run according to that rule. Not too worried about that clock running out before he runs, should he ever choose to do so. That all said, I'd be passing happy with a Gore-Obama ticket or Obama at State under Gore. Either scenario would, I strongly believe, yield maximum and historic good results. I wouldn't feel the same about Obama running at the bottom of any other Dem ticket.
First, before I comment, giddy, I hope you're laughing at Batman's post, because I would be rolling on the floor laughing, were I physically capable of rolling on the floor laughing with a couple of titanium screws in my back, had that been directed at me. Batman, I've never seen one of your plays, or read one, but this may be the first time you've truly shown me what you can do, and I'm impressed! (yes, I know you just whipped it out, but so what?) "This next bit is strictly opinion, but I have a hard time thinking of a single candidate from either party that would run a better, more thoughtful, more exciting campaign than Obama. That doesn't mean that if someone disagrees he's racist. It just is what it is." Love this, Batman, because it is completely true. Not partially true, a little true, or somewhat true... it's dead, solid true. This country needs this man so much to be it's President. It would be a watershed event in American politics, and the country would be amazed, because America would regain what makes it great, and feel, for the first time in decades, that we are special, really special. The man would bring us together like no other. In my opinion. Keep D&D Civil.
Thus far incessant? He-he. You are the Overloard of Uberhype. At least you indicate that you understand the difference between "to" and "about." MY argument is a non-starter? You overlook your own assumption that Obama is a "concensus" good to great candidate. Didn't Obama himself promise to notify the press when he had "done something?" Facts are facts. At least you recognize that it was your language choice which I merely mirrored. Did I even mention Snopes? You say I mocked it... and the rest of your charges are more Bat poop.
I don't think giddyup thought it was funny, Deckard. giddyup has mentioned snopes several times, as described in my previous post. The posts are there to be found whenever search is turned back on (it's off right? I don't see the option). I'm not sure whether he doesn't remember it or what. Isn't it weird how whenever people like giddy and gwayne don't know what to say they start talking about poop?
I can appreciate the humor, but I can still correct the flaws. You can't take liberty with just anything you want. Don't even try and slither out of the Snopes trap you set for yourself. You misrepresented the truth and now you try to circumvent it by distraction.
As I think so often when I read giddyup's posts, "Huh??" Is that supposed to make sense? Has anyone noticed that giddyup is talking to me, instead of about me? I think that's rude. If anyone talks to him, ask him if he's seriously saying he never posted about snopes here. Because if not, again as so often, "Huh??"
I would love to see the horrid source from which he retrieved these numbers. We are a country built on immigrants. Immigrants from all different nations, different ethnicities and different religions. Our lack of discrimination has been one of - if not THE - major building block to making us the lone superpower in the world. And no, I am no bleeding heart Liberal Atheist who thinks that all believers in Christianity are [insert insult here]. I'm a Moderate Republican who is a born-again Agnostic. On a side note - please do not ever confuse Agnostic with Atheist. PS - I'm sorry. I just started what's going to be my rant with that first little paragraph, but I should have read the whole article before responding. But, when I saw those stats I just couldn't contain myself. Now I shall go finish the article.... ::EDIT:: Oops. I spoke too soon. I do agree with this guy, for the most part. However, since he's a politician, I'm inclined to think that he's just saying this to further his career as a politician. He seems to be doing what many of them do. Taking an issue, and trying to put their name all over it so people will think of them when the issue comes up. See: Al Gore in An Inconveniant Truth
I think 24 and Dennis Haysbert have done far more towards eventually getting a black president than Colin Powell or any other current figure. What 24 did was make it matter of fact acceptable of the idea of black president to public opinion. Even during the first season of 24 David Palmer's race wasn't much of an issue and by season two he was just accepted as President with no debate on the show or publically among fans and media watchers. Unlike Commander and Chief where the president being a woman was a huge issue in 24 the president being black wasn't an issue. He wasn't the black president he was just the president.
Quit playing dumb. You take creative liberty with the truth: 1. Do you really know how relentless "incessant" is? I've asked you two or three times in different threads to cease with the personal attacks. You continue to see yourself as above the "law." 2. When you can't or won't answer an argument, you call it a non-starter. 3. Fetishism is de facto sexual. You went there and I just rode the theme. 4. My "letters" represent a diversity of things that come my way that I find worthy of discussion. I've just posted them and want to see the discussion that ensues. Whether they are authenic or not is immaterial; they are material to discuss. What you write is fiction; surely you understand this? 5. It is impossible to outpace someone by more than 1.000%. More hype. 6. Reflecting is not a stance of victimhood. How coy? Doesn't it matter what one says? Coulter wrote a book with a line about the Jersey Widows; she didn't confront them on some cable news show. Stephen Colbert tries to disgrace the president to his face and what were you critical of most? That he wasn't that funny, maybe? Distraction. I never said that I "never posted about snopes here." Your remarks were referencing this thread and I had not even mentioned Snopes. You did.
Yes. A little bit more "relentless" than "constant." Both are exaggerations, neither is uncommon as such. I don't consider an argument to be an attack. I think most of what you regard to be attacks I consider arguments. I do call you weird and crazy here a lot, because I think you are, but it's not meant as an attack anymore than I expect you consider it an attack when you call me arrogant or rude or whatever. I'm not sure what you regard to have been an attack. Remind me what you're talking about and I'll explain or apologize. I don't think I'm above any law. And, anyway, if the stuff gwayne, Jorge, basso, texxx, Nomar and others is okay, I'm really not worried I've been over the line. I agree that I have a sharper tongue than you do. I'm an Aries with a Leo moon and a Leo rising. It's not entirely my fault. I can promise you that you have never made an argument I couldn't answer. You've posted some I didn't answer but that's because I couldn't understand what the hell you even meant. That happens a lot with us. (That's not an attack. I seriously can't understand what you're saying half the time.) No, you're wrong. Here. This is from dictionary.com: fet·ish also fet·ich n. 1. An object that is believed to have magical or spiritual powers, especially such an object associated with animistic or shamanistic religious practices. 2. An object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence: made a fetish of punctuality. 3. Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification. 4. An abnormally obsessive preoccupation or attachment; a fixation. fet·ish·ism also fet·ich·ism n. 1. Worship of or belief in magical fetishes. 2. Excessive attachment or regard. 3. The displacement of sexual arousal or gratification to a fetish. I don't understand what's meant by "what you write is fiction." Do you mean that I write plays? If so, that's hilarious. You bring in roundly debunked propaganda and you want us to respond to its lessons as we would a piece of fiction? For serious? Or do you mean that I write fiction on the board or wrote some in this thread? Because I don't and I haven't. It's not hype, it's slang. It means ten times more than and it's not uncommon either. But since you're grading my paper, I'll try to return the favor. I'm not great at math, but I said 1,000%, not 1.000%. I could be wrong but I think it's totally possible "to outpace someone by more than 1.000%" All you have to get to is the smallest amount over 1 percent. What I said was a thousand times that. Stumped me again. I'm totally baffled. I don't even have a guess. That's what you're really leaning on now? That she didn't say it to their faces? See, you're just weird. This is like when you tried to sell the idea that when Coulter said "enjoy" she didn't mean "are happy about." I have never seen crazy arguments like these. Not even on the freakiest boards. You are totally unique this way. She said the 9/11 widows (for crying out loud) enjoyed their husbands deaths! She called them witches and harpies and said their dead husbands were probably planning to divorce them anyway! I ask again, how in holy hell can you defend that?! Are you seriously telling me that it doesn't count because she didn't say it to their faces???? First of all, I thought he was hilarious. You have me confused with someone else. I thought it was about the funniest thing I've seen all year. Courageous too. Second, are you freaking kidding me? Criticizing and making jokes about the president to his face is worse than that hate crap Coulter said on TV? You are insane. First off, the worst thing you can say about what Colbert did was that it was rude or inappropriate. Do you honestly believe that saying widows they're glad their husbands are dead is equal to or less than being rude or trying to embarass someone???? Oh okay, I get it now. I really didn't before. You invented a new rule that we can only talk about things that have already been mentioned in this thread. Sorry. I did not know that. I think I brought up Ted Nugent too even though you've only talked about him in other threads, so sorry for that too. How do you get new rules passed? I've got some I want to do too.
I guess I'll have to start another thread on abortion sometime soon... Learn something every day. You probably won't believe this but every one of those pieces was unknown to me. I saw them on the web or got them in an email and I thought there was some merit to discussing them. If I get something and find it on Snopes, I don't bother to post it. The last one had a change of title and a change of author and a Snopes search did not turn it up for me. At any rate, your notion of A) what is propoganda and B) what being roundly debunked means is probably different from mine. I simply meant that you can have an authentic discussion about something whether it is propoganda, yellow journalism, pulp fiction, fiction, non-fiction, or a play. At the end of the day it is an idea on paper/screen and can be discussed. Like anything, if it has truth that can be ascertained and if it has falsehoods, those can cleared up. There will never be unanimous agreement about something's merit so you need not even attempt to be dismissive about any piece. Just play or don't play. I'm not even sure if I copied what you wrote properly (comma or period). I took what you said to be the analogue to "batting a thousand" which is, I believe, perfection. I was pointing out that you cannot exceed perfection. Why can your side be blunt about Bush, Condi or Cheney but she can't be similiarly blunt about the Jersey Widows? There is a totally legitimate second definition of the word "enjoy." I suggest that that is what she meant. Neither of us knows the bottomline. Apparently many of the other 9/11 widows have been supportive of Coulter's criticism of the Jersey Widows. Saw her on Donny Deutsch (SP?) tonight. Where is their place in the pantheon of 9/11 commentators? Maybe if they were Bush Critics they would get their airtime... As best I can tell, Coulter wrote one line in a book and that's all you seem to obsess over-- kind of like my defense of Ted Nugent. It's not even the title of the book-- or the subtitle. Sorry for confusing you, but yours is a better response to illustrate my point about incivility. How is it better to attempt to demean the president of the US to his face than to write a line in a book about four women who have been authorized by the MSM to assail President Bush? Bull. I didn't invent any rule. Let me try one of yours: try re-reading what I wrote. It's all there. You were replying to a particular post. You indicated that I had made some kind of value judgement about Snopes which I had not. It's just inaccurate and a smear of sorts which I refuse to overlook. You can create reality in your plays but not here; some of us have something to say here whether you like it or not. In fact the only comment I think I've every made about Snopes is to wonder who checks their facts and what is their vested interest-- that was about 2-3 years ago and as I recall a lot of people chimed in that they are indeed verifiably left-leaning and nobody knows who checks their facts.
I was about to reply to all this (and I probably will tomorrow) but then I got to this whacked out paragraph: "You were replying to a particular post. You indicated that I had made some kind of value judgement about Snopes which I had not. It's just inaccurate and a smear of sorts which I refuse to overlook. You can create reality in your plays but not here; some of us have something to say here whether you like it or not." Wow. Are you on meth? You are out of your mind. Your entire post is insane, but this stuff is way out.
Obama can make it if he can appear consistent. Perot would've had a stronger popular showing if he didn't purposely sabotage his campaign. With the backing of the Democratic Party, Obama's reach is limitless. It'll depend if the senior members will willingly step aside even though he hasn't "paid his dues",
The Jersey Widows never ever attacked anyone. They didn't make decisions that caused the death of innocents. They didn't lie about intel in the build up to a war. The Jersey widows are innocent of all of those things. Bush, Condi, and Cheney are not innocent of any of those things. They have on multiple occasions done all of them. Yet even still most of the commentary against Bush and company are policy related. The attacks against the widows most certainly are not. You second definition of the word enjoy is also incorrect and was a rotten thing to say. Even though that is not what Coulter meant. Look at the rest of her comments about the widows. She is calling them harpies, and witches, and talking about their husbands wanting to divorce them. Her whole tone suggests that she did not mean the first one. Though like I said, both definitions are lousy accusations to make against widows who lost their husbands in the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and never attacked anyone. It doesn't take a party affiliation or even an interest in politics to be offended by what Coulter said. It only takes common decency and being a gentleman.
I have asked repeatedly and never been given one example of the MSM giving these widows license to do anything. They haven't assailed Bush. They pointed out(correctly) that Bush didn't want to form a 9/11 commission, and then after forming it, has not implemented the commission's recommendations. If pointing out the FACTS, and working towards a cause that these widows have been personally affected by is assailing somebody, then the world is lost. I can't believe you are buying into that garbage about the MSM authorizing these widows to do anything. Nobody has ever been prevented from speaking out against them, personally, or on issues. Why anyone would want to personally attack them is beyond me. Like I've said before they have done nothing to anyone.
That was some of the funniest stuff ever from BJ. Hilarious. I don't post in hear very much anymore - I find it to depressing. But that made me laugh. EDIT: For the record, I too can recall giddy getting all defensive about stupid chain emails and snopes.com. But at least he's never called me a terrorist-loving, america-hating, commie-pinko *** bu****lerist libpig blah blah blah.... I like giddy's post because while they are painfully wrong, at least he is arguing the point in question, as opposed to ad hominem attacks and useless "pwned" posturing that we see from other posters; who are better suited to the special olympics then message board political debate.
Seriously FB, why are you still trying to speak about this rationally to giddyup? Why do you think this eloquent posting of COMMON SENSE will matter to someone unwilling to change his/her opinion? Serious question. I have several family members that it is pointless to debate with, and so I don't.
Just quit. Here's the original quote which indicates that you did fabricates things you charge me with saying about Snopes which I did not: "giddyup admits he has posted somewhere around 12 of these silly things, outpacing anyone else on this board by more than 1,000%. Not to mention the fact that, in each case, he has kept each of those silly threads alive for pages, insisting that people argue the merits of chain mails that have been soundly debunked by snopes.com and others as bogus propaganda, telling fake stories written under fake names. Not only that, but <b>he (giddyup) goes further and mocks snopes</b> as unreliable even while that site's reliability has never been questioned anywhere else. In fact, he is just so desperate to believe in and argue totally debunked fakery that he suggests maybe the exposers of that fakery are the actual fakes. To him that is not extreme. But then, to him, neither is Ann Coulter." My remarks about Snopes were made 2-3 years ago and I didn't even mention Snopes in this thread until a page or two later than this reply of yours. You don't write the characters or their lines here....
Who books them? Who invites them onto news shows? Who produces their press conferences? Who selected them to be representative of 9/11 widows? As Coulter herself said, the widows can say anything they want, but when they enter the public fray they have to be able to stand the heat. A lot is made of Bush resisting the establishment of the 9/11 Commission. That is just par for the course: http://www.voicesofsept11.org/news/121204.htm "...In April 2002, Lorie Van Auken and Mindy Kleinberg attended a widows' support group in Princeton, N.J., where they also began to wonder what the government was doing to investigate the 9-11 attacks. Bob Monetti, president of Families of Pan Am 103, told them bluntly that the government wouldn't do anything without a kick in the pants. Monetti of Cherry Hill, N.J., lost his son when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded and crashed into the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988. He said the government's rigidity was almost comical. "Two of the Jersey girls were complaining that no one was helping them. They just assumed politicians would take up the cause and nothing was happening. I impolitely explained to them nothing would happen unless they did it," Monetti said. "My wife kicked me for saying it, but within two weeks they scheduled their first rally," he said. "You can't underestimate what a few determined people can do...."
