it was a jab at those who have used his name as a sarcastic tool, not at obama lui stesso, hence the inherent irony. but, perhaps it was too subtle for those for whom sarcasm is the only political tool that carries any weight.
If there were a rational candidate he would espouse, limiting growth, living with less, reducing populations, secularism, acceptance and tolerance, fiscal austerity, having our natural resources controlled by the people, respecting an individuals rights to do as they please as long as they are not endangering the public etc. In other words, rationality is a non-starter in elective politics.
The irony is in your failed attempt at properly constructing an ironic device, exposing you as a half-wit while you deride others for missing the subtlety of your vacuous expression.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wxo0lsJnx-U&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wxo0lsJnx-U&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Are you into Black Helicopters taking over for the UN, etc. ? Well you did prove my point of how some of the dishonest sliming of the Clintons for the last 16 years has stuck. The sliming is being done to Obama but it takes awhile before it sticks forever. For instance a coworker of my wife's told her just yesterday that Obama is a Muslim who will not swear on a Bible etc. This she believes is established fact.
Yes, it's pretty absurd. From what I see of the poll numbers, Obama has lower negatives and higher approval ratings against McCain than Ms. Clinton does, and she has higher negatives than McCain. What I don't buy is that good Democrats like the Clintons should be slimed by hysterical Obama fans. There's plenty of GOP sliming going on and will be plenty more. Better to rally behind what is best for the party than to waste energy on fantastical stories. In my opinion. Impeach Bush.
Interesting. In my opinion, the Clintons would have a lot less to worry about from Obama supporters if they stopped dishonestly "sliming" Obama. Which reminds me, I believe I'm still waiting on an answer from you as to whether or not you equate Obama making an entirely benign statement about the MLK comment being unfortunate (one week after it was made and well after many, many others, including some in the Clinton camp acknowledged it was unfortunate) with her and Bill willfully and repeatedly misrepresenting his record on health care, Iraq, abortion rights and Reagan. Every day the Clintons behave like that and people act like they, of all people, are victims of attacks from the Obama camp is a day I come closer to staying home in November if she gets the nomination. I don't want to do that, Deckard. But every one of your posts decrying the Obama camp's treatment of her pushes me farther toward it.
The flipside of the argument. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/the-unemotional.html The Unemotional Case For Obama 08 Feb 2008 04:01 pm A meme is developing is that support for Obama is all emotion, fantasy, hysteria, etc. There's no question that the emotions behind Obama are powerful. And any fool can see why. His oratory does what oratory should. He is the greatest public speaker in American life since Reagan. And the shame and demoralization of the Bush-Cheney years - when we launched a war with reckless indifference to planning it, when we tortured prisoners and called it "enhanced interrogation", when we saw a government rendered so utterly useless that a hurricane made the US look like the third world, when conservatives added $32 trillion to the debt of the next generation, when a president made sophomoric jokes about not finding weapons of mass destruction he leveraged American global credibility on ... if you don't feel emotions in wanting to put this disgrace of an administration behind us, then you are not being rational. But the strongest case for Obama is not emotional; it is as coolly rational as he is. I tried to express it in my "Goodbye To All That" essay. On the most critical issues we face - Iraq, the war against Jihadism, healthcare, and the economy - he makes more sense as a president than Clinton. And when you watch the knee-jerk opposition to him, I think it is actually more emotional and less rational than the support for him. Fear is more emotional than hope. (Major's note: you see this perfectly in Mr. Meowgi) And defending Clinton on the grounds of "experience" and "substance" is a fairy tale on both counts, if you pardon the expression. Her legislative experience is one term longer than Obama's (and that's if you don't count Obama's state legislative record), is notable mainly for its uninspired diligence in constituency work, and on the most important issue of the day, Iraq, simply wrong. Her main executive branch experience was destroying a historic opportunity for healthcare reform through arrogance, secrecy and over-reach. Her "substance" claim is just as phony. There is no detail in her policy apparatus that isn't matched by Obama's. But you've heard a lot from me on this. Here's a video that shows a conservative cynic being slowly and rationally disarmed by the logic of young, shrewd voter. (video that i haven't watched included in the link)
Both Huckabee and Obama seem genuine and trustworthy in their promises of change and hope. It's not like the other opponents haven't tried using that tactic. That video made me smile.
funny you should mention this- i woke up this morning to the sound of helicopters flying overhead. went outside, and the streets were cordoned off, police command center set-up, and swat and bomb squad out in force. someone had called in a bomb threat to the JCC up the street, and they shuy down a good portion of the west side, including my kid's school and the middle school next door. but hey, we can still pine for the halcyon days of the mid-90's, when Uday and Qusay could cavort on the Euphrates, enslaving women and murdering homosexuals- those were peaceful times indeed. Take a look at yourself and make that change!
What do Uday and Qusay have to do with a bomb threat near your residence? And as far as not enslaving women, and all of that Women's rights in general were better off in Iraq than with the present govt. I'm just amazed that you could have a bomb threat in your neighborhood and somehow see that as a reason for justifying the Iraq invasion. Saddam and his sons being gone is a positive, but it has nothing to do with making the U.S. safer.
They all bring about fear and loathing. That's all they have in common. I think the GWB presidency could have put sharks on their list and accomplished the same things. "Saddam is known to enjoyable, enjoy and, well perish, I mean cherish sharks. Evil-doing, er biting sharks. Sharks of mass biting. We must put some regime change on Iraq before his sharks are let loose on western stenogra -- uh, western democracy."
Now, you see why partisan politics is so devisive. I'd usually be considered in with the lefties but I agree with this statement. The nobility of the idea is inspiring. My only arguments with GWB on that issue would be the incompetency of the effort. The Coalition was laughable and dismantling the civil system was mistake of petty vindictivness. Where's the accountability?
Real Face Of Jesus Advances in forensic science reveal the most famous face in history From the first time Christian children settle into Sunday school classrooms, an image of Jesus Christ is etched into their minds. In North America he is most often depicted as being taller than his disciples, lean, with long, flowing, light brown hair, fair skin and light-colored eyes. Familiar though this image may be, it is inherently flawed. A person with these features and physical bearing would have looked very different from everyone else in the region where Jesus lived and ministered. Surely the authors of the Bible would have mentioned so stark a contrast. On the contrary, according to the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane before the Crucifixion, Judas Iscariot had to indicate to the soldiers whom Jesus was because they could not tell him apart from his disciples. full article
