Friday, July 20, 2012
New Sources For Post Ideas
I've been thinking of using posts or topics from the lib sites of my blogroll for post ideas here. I don't know if I will do it as a series ala Agenda Lies or just do them as the mood strikes me. Geoffrey's blog is a veritable cornucopia of ideas and I thought of doing a series of just his stuff, calling it something like "Geoffie's Place" or something to that effect. In any event, I have to draw attention to his most recent post as it is so astounding. This guy desperately wants George Zimmerman to have murdered an innocent black kid for no reason. There is little possible alternative explanation for someone to post such nonsense after all the facts that have come to light about the case and the people involved since the first malicious shrieks accusing Zimmerman of being a neanderthal racist who gunned down an innocent and unassuming black child. The irony is that Geoffie's "interview" with Martin is a lame attempt to mock the Sean Hannity interview of Zimmerman, where he has for the first time spoken publicly to defend against all the Geoffies of the world who passed judgement without knowing anything beyond the skin color of the two involved. You'd think this "Christian" seminary student married to a preacher would at least step the hell back at this point from his own racist assumptions. Even more ironic is that just two posts earlier, in the comments section, Geoffrey asks the burning question, "Are we loving people?" For Geoffrey, the answer seems clearly, "No."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
Seems to me what Geoffrey is saying is that Zimmerman is "available" to field softball questions from Sean Hannity and tell his version of "God's plan" while the only other prime witness is not available to tell his version.
By the way, it takes very, very little to mock Sean Hannity for anything. He is target rich.
Jim,
Hannity's not the issue and you've no room to suggest that HE is target rich for mockery. At least not when I have so many of your comments on my blog.
And of course Martin's not available. It was not HIS side of the story that Zimmerman was telling or trying to refute. He was telling HIS story to refute the bullshit from people like you and Geoffrey who want to frame him as some racist killer of children.
I stopped "framing him as some racist killer" a long time ago. Yeah, I did at first,, and I stopped. That doesn't mean I sympathize with him or totally believe his story or that Martin wouldn't still be alive if Zimmerman had acted differently long before he pulled the trigger.
It doesn't appear you have stopped framing him as you continue to put the onus on HIM for acting differently. He acted completely lawfully give the facts we know. Unless there is something not being revealed that counters it, one can only honestly posit that Martin would be alive if MARTIN acted differently.
I don't care about "legally". I care about prudently. A prudent person would not have left his vehicle. A prudent person wouldn't have been walking around in the rainy dark carrying a gun.
You have a strange notion of what constitutes prudence as regards as situation such as this.
"Rainy dark"? It would show less prudence NOT to be armed at such a time.
A prudent person wouldn't have left his vehicle? You're not talking "prudence". You're talking "wussy". A wussy would have stayed in the vehicle while a person dressed in the manner of those who have been victimizing the area walks through that area in a suspicious manner (not straight home, in between the buildings, in the rain).
Prudence would dictate that one not walk around in the rainy dark dressed in a manner similar to those who have been victimizing the area in a state with concealed carry and stand your ground laws. Prudence would dictate walking straight to one's destination in a manner that does not appear suspicious. Prudence would dictate not acting like a hard-ass toward the person whose suspicions your actions have aroused. Prudence would dictate you not confront a person who has not confronted you and whose suspicious would be allayed by merely entering the home that is your destination through the front door as would anyone who has legitimate access. Prudence would dictate not defending the wrong guy simply because he was shot to death.
Wuss? Wussy? It's all about big balls, huh?
in between the buildings, in the rain
IN THE RAIN, dummy. Why do you THINK he was running from building to building?
Seems like a guy in his late 20s would be expected to be more prudent than a 17 year-old.
Prudence would dictate not acting like a hard-ass...
Now you are making a case for things which are not in evidence, doing exactly what you accused others of doing earlier on in the case. You're making stuff up.
Very imprudent.
I really shouldn't do this . . .
I typed "trayvon martin" in to the search box at the top of my site. This is the result. I would appreciate a quote from any of the posts there, accessible just by clicking the word "This", in which I "Frame" George Zimmerman as a racist killer. On the contrary, I'm pretty harsh on the United States as a whole a country in which some people feel it justified and justifiable to kill.
I read what I wrote then, and with the exception that it has become clear Zimmerman had indeed been assaulted - whether by Trayvon Martin or someone else is still to be determined by a court of law - I stand by every word I wrote. I never "framed" George Zimmerman as a racist killer. When you find where I did so in Art-world, let me know.
Thanks.
You've got to be kidding, Geoff. You post a piece on how racist America is, link to two separate articles, each more than implying racism was a factor in the event as well as the following debate over it, and then end with this:
"I sit in mourning with Trayvon's family, wishing only this - that someone in a position of authority would say he should not have died that February afternoon, that George Zimmerman's act of violence deserves, at the very least, to be investigated as a crime, and that young Trayvon Martin should not be remembered as anything other than what he was: a young man full of promise that will never be fulfilled because it is still far too easy and convenient to see a young black man as a threat, rather than a human being."
Martin was not seen as a threat simply because he was a young black man. He was seen as a threat because the community through which he was walking was victimized by young black men dressed as he was. His appearance as he walked in the rain in less than a direct-to-his-destination manner suggested a strong possibility that he was another of the same. The suspicion was therefor more than justified and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
But in reality, I could have pointed to the whole post. However, in typical Geoff (and lefty) fashion, you think that because you didn't use the words "racist killer" that your obvious sentiment isn't indicated. And before you try to give me crap about telling you what you think, note that your precious Charlie Pierce has done a whole lot of "reading between the lines" in his poor excuse for a column. And don't forget that you referred to the killing as a murder, thus you've convicted a person you don't know of a "crime" to which you were not a witness because the victim was a black youth.
Now here's the part where your standard whiney reply of "I don't care what you think" will best fit: In light of all the shootings in the Chicago area this year, I don't believe you shed the least tear Martin or his family and that, together with your recent post wherein you ask "are we loving people", I don't believe you give a flying rat's ass about anyone not closely related to you (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here), but rather, I'm sure you just like to be perceived so.
Jim, the Parkie-wanna-be,
"Wuss? Wussy? It's all about big balls, huh?"
No. It's about you suggesting that the prudent thing to do when a person is acting suspiciously is hide in the car. What's more, he already had an experience of spotting suspicious activity and acted "prudently". The kid got away but was found to have burglarized a home in the area. That's what YOUR wussy style of prudence gets you.
"IN THE RAIN, dummy. Why do you THINK he was running from building to building?"
He wasn't "running" anywhere. He was walking. But the truly desperate suggestion is that he was trying to dodge the raindrops by running from building to building? Really? THAT'S the story you're going with here? And you call me "dummy"!
"Now you are making a case for things which are not in evidence, doing exactly what you accused others of doing earlier on in the case. You're making stuff up."
Not at all. It is based on evidence from his social site presence, the testimony of the girl he was supposedly talking to on his cell AND the testimony of the guy who shot him (not to mention that testimony of the guy who saw the scuffle preceding the shooting).
Here's an important thing to note, Jim, and fools like Geoffrey should pay attention as well. This incident involved two people who were dealing with one similarity: Each claimed suspicious behavior by the other. In the case of Zimmerman, I've covered his righteous suspicions already, as have other people. In the case of Martin, his suspicions were based on Zimmerman following him. Between the two, who made the most imprudent choices? Absolutely not Zimmerman, as he merely followed, tried to keep up with Martin at a distance, and then heeded the suggestion that his following wasn't necessary (though keeping tabs on the suspicious person is indeed a prudent course if one wishes to determine whether or not the suspicions are justified). He then went back to his car until challenged by Martin.
In Martin's case, he was taking the long way home in the rain (the distance from his convenience store to home was a very short distance, no more than a fifteen minute walk at most and his presence and the time of it were recorded), walking between the houses that suggested a casing and doing so dressed in the manner of those known to have been victimizing the area. Right there, no prudence is evident whatsoever. But it gets worse. He realizes he's being watched and followed. Regardless of his intentions, prudence would dictate throwing off suspicion (if the intentions were to case the homes) or reducing risk of harm by getting right to his destination as soon as possible. If he was truly just an innocent kid walking home, getting home and calling police to report Zimmerman's "suspicious" behavior is the definition of prudence. Seems like you believe a 17yr old is incapable of prudent thought. Not even a nice try, Jim.
Whether or not you want to accept that America is a racist society Art is neither here nor there. The evidence that this is so is the clear, and I really have no reason to wipe the scales from your eyes.
Since throughout at least one of the pieces I wrote I use the first person plural, and am pretty harsh on those who wish to make racists some "Other" they can blame, I most definitely include myself in the indictment I wrote. If you knew English, you'd understand "first person plural" (we, us) includes me.
So, is George Zimmerman any worse a racist than I am? I have no idea. Am I somehow less racist than he? Sadly, no. While hardly central to the post, that self-indictment should have been clear enough.
If you clicked the link to the Charlie Pierce post in my latest post, you might have read a comment in which I stated that only two things are clear and without a doubt in my own mind: Trayvon Martin is dead. George Zimmerman shot and killed him.
I stand, again, with my own words when I insisted we need to allow our clunky, inefficient, error-ridden, faulty justice system to work to determine legal guilt and innocence. My posts were more about the social climate in which the act took place, something about which we all can do something, beginning with confessing our own complicity in the myriad ways some human lives are devalued, and some folks, including you, think it's OK to kill other human beings.
"the Parkie-wanna-be"
Marsha.. if you want a conversation with me just say so. We all are greatly aware of the size of your ego. So, man-up.. in a totally heterosexual way of course.
First off, Geoffrey, the current state of the American culture exhibits far more bigotry against real Christian teaching than it does against the skin color of any group or groups.
There is no issue with how you used "first person plural" or anything related to proper English. It's your position entirely that is suspect to say the least.
That there are elements of racism still in existence in the USA is not at issue, nor have I ever made such a suggestion. But it is not accurate to call us a racist nation, especially by anyone who would get queasy over the suggestion that we are a Christian nation. Racism, sadly, will likely always exist, but it simply does not exist in this country to the extent you'd like to believe it does. THAT is pretty damned evident and even a blind man can see it. Why you can't might mean a change of prescription for you. See your eye doctor.
You ARE more racist than Zimmerman. Of this there is little doubt as he maintains he is not and you, in your white guilt, admit you are.
As to the social climate in this country, it is constantly being clouded over by people like you and other race-baiters like Al Sharpton, who need a racist country in order to validate themselves as a voice for a twisted sense of "justice".
But now that I've demonstrated my point in presenting evidence for my opinion of you with your own words and how they show your projection onto America with your "first person plural", perhaps you could demonstrate how you could imagine that there is anyway I've ever taken the position that it is "OK" to kill other human beings. The fact is that even justification for killing, as in the self-defense act of Zimmerman, "OK" is not an appropriate or accurate description of my position.
I admit no complicity for anything in which I am not complicit. You can if you like, if it makes you feel as if you can pose as taking the moral high ground, but it is fraudulent unless you are truly a bigot and living in a manner that allows for race-based killings to take place with regularity.
oh.. and marsha.. if you are looking for an opportunity demonstrate how it is not ok to kill other human beings.. Perhaps Warren Hill can help you on this journey.
Are you serious troll? How long have I been open to a real conversation with you and instead you post crap intended to be clever? You are an idiot. The nature of posting the types of posts here is to provoke serious conversation, you idiot. Are you now claiming to be ready, or are you again trying to project upon me some characteristic that doesn't match anything I've ever posted?
And no, I am not looking for an opportunity to show how it is not OK to kill human beings. How deeply must you stick your hand up your own backside in order to pull out such nonsense?
"I am not looking for an opportunity to show how it is not OK to kill human beings."
There you have it. marsha.. still interested in killing people. Im glad we cleared that up.
You certainly hit all the right words and so-called "ideas". Liberals are the real racists. Al Sharpton. I'm not guilty of anything.
Blah-blah-blah
Have fun.
Benny, Benny, Benny! What a sad little cretin you are! What you quoted me saying shows only that I'm not looking for an opportunity. You suggested that if I'm looking for one, to check out Hill. But I'm not looking for such an opportunity. That doesn't mean I favor killing anyone, you putz. However, you really are arousing in me a thought about beating your ass. Fortunately, unlike lefties, I expend the effort to control my urges, not pretend they're morally neutral and as such thoughts fade, I will again be filled with sorrow that such as you so often tries to be clever and so consistently fails.
Geoffrey,
What I hit was truth and reality. So typical of you to go all 5 yr old on me and pretend I'm saying what I didn't say. But libs are indeed more racist as they continue to bring up the accusation when they feel it serves them to do so (as you are in your post). They pretend minorities are in need of gov't help, whereas we on the right are convinced they are, in general, every bit as capable of advancing themselves as anyone else. Rather than hold them accountable for their own condition, libs will lower standards, thereby lowering quality for all, so that minorities get a hand out, rather than a true hand up. The left in general, and Democrats in particular, have never been a champion for the black race or minorities and they aren't now. Y'all do like to pander, though.
As for not being guilty of anything, why do you whine about having words put in your mouth when you continually do this to me? Go ahead and show me where I've even hinted at this.
I'm guilty of many things, but racism isn't one of them. The funny thing is that just today, after leaving the terminal and reaching my first destination, the first six people I saw were all black. At this particular freight company, there was the lady behind the counter, whose name escapes me, as it isn't a regular stop. But she greets me warmly and we joke about. Then there is a Haitian named Julio, who used to work at a different location. I just got a haircut and shaved my stash and beard and he didn't know who I was. When I showed him my driver's license (you know, a photo ID), he laughed his ass off for not recognizing me. Then there was Willie, who had to do a second take himself. Then Kobe from Ghana walked by and told me not to talk to Julio, who told me not to talk to Kobe. Kobe works for that company but I always see him when we are both picking up freight at a totally different place. As I was leaving, I bumped into a driver from a different company I see only often enough for each of us to recognize each other and occasionally exchange small talk. Got a fist bump from this dreadlocked dude and a warm greeting as we passed. Finally, as I was about to pull out of the dock, another driver of this company that I also usually bump into, and whose name I never got (he doesn't know mine either, but refers to me as "BeeGee" because when my hair was still long I reminded him of Barry Gibb--not a strong resemblance, mind you, but just a suggestion due to the hair)noticed me in the truck and came over to chat and joke. When I drove off, I thought of you, and feo and Parkie the troll and all the others who claim people like me are racist. And these are only some of the blacks with whom I work and associate and that doesn't even get into the hispanics and middle eastern people with whom I work and associate on a daily basis. Their race or ethnicity never even occurs to me when I see them. I regard them as people. Why do you see them as anything else?
I regard them as people.
Except they probably shouldn't be voting since they likely voted for President Obama last time.
Jim,
Are you black? YOU voted for Obama. YOU shouldn't vote. But my position is that those who voted for Obama need to do more to study the issues and their votes for Obama are proof of this. No one should vote who doesn't take the time to really understand the issues.
You got a fist bump from a black man.
Wow.
OK, you’re in.
Nothing proves your not a racist more than that.
"YOU voted for Obama. YOU shouldn't vote."
If you dont agree with me, then you're wrong.
Seems like a reasonable conclusion to take.
"When I drove off, I thought of you, and feo and Parkie the troll and all the others who claim people like me are racist."
Obsessed much..
But yeah.. a story about black people serving you with smiling faces.. I get it.
Oh, this is special:
"You got a fist bump from a black man.
Wow.
OK, you’re in.
Nothing proves your not a racist more than that."
This from a guy who likes to talk about his imaginary black wife (I don't believe anyone would marry such a pompous ass like feo) as if that makes him totally down with the black experience.
But like Parkie, who is his intellectual equal (I'm really not sure which of the two I've insulted worse), feo totally misses the obvious point in favor of perpetuating the myth in which they need to believe: that I am a racist in some way.
The fact is that my little story was simply to point out how I have no issues with any black people as evidenced by my daily interaction with them and other people of different races, ethnic backgrounds, religions, genders and political persuasions. If any of the above mentioned people believed I'm a racist, they'd be all business, not welcoming my company as I welcome theirs.
The real issue now comes back to the placement of the bar that feo insists is way above me regarding race relations. He, like Geoffrey, his identical twin, believes all white people are stained by the same grime, but can't really articulate how it manifests in someone like me who continually insists otherwise and has shown it. If I don't realize my own sin, then you certainly haven't been able to describe how it exists within me. You might have a chance with that if I was a fellow lib voting Democrat every election, but I vote for the party that raises the level of all people without regard to appearance.
Benny the troll-boy,
"If you dont agree with me, then you're wrong."
In your case, Benny-boy, that's true and likely the first time you've ever been right. But I don't seek agreement with me, but for people to open their eyes and join me in agreeing with what reality dictates. Someday, cretin, you'll have to step outside your momma's house and meet reality face-to-face. I'm sure momma will hold your hand.
And by the way, go back and read my comment and show me where I said anything about any of those people serving me. I can't seem to find it, which is natural since they don't serve me at all. They serve the people whose freight we both move. Idiot.
Are you black?
Why do you ask?
YOU voted for Obama.
How do you know?
But my position is that those who voted for Obama need to do more to study the issues and their votes for Obama are proof of this.
This "position" is about as f**ked up as they come. It's insane, moronic, arrogant, elitist. Furthermore, it clearly indicates that it is YOU who does not understand the issues. And yet, I wouldn't suggest that you should not be voting because of your ballot choices. I'm not that much of an asshat.
Jim,
Whether or not you're an asshat is clearly revealed in your comments.
My position is quite sound. Either Obama supporters didn't vet him before voting or they did. If the former, then they are not serious voters and only vote based on superficial nonsense such as his race or his meaningless rhetoric. If they did, that's worse because he was clearly the worst possible choice for any public office. Such people should not vote because in either case they have harmed the nation. These scenarios indicate more than potentially electing someone less qualified, but NOT AT ALL qualified.
It was one thing to want to avoid another four years of a GW Bush-type president (which McCain was not--he would have been liberal enough for any honest lib), but there is nothing in Obama's past that indicates he was ever worthy of even running for president, much less getting a vote from anyone to be president. Many conservatives DID look at his past and warned against him to no avail. Libs either didn't look at his past or didn't care what they saw. Shameful to say the least and such people shouldn't vote because they've proven they don't take the privilege seriously.
I thought about your last comment for a bit and then realized the only appropriate answer to it is:
You're an idiot.
And why is that, Jim? What about what I've said is idiotic exactly? Is it that people who don't take the act of voting for our nations leaders seriously shouldn't vote? Sure, that would cut down on a huge percentage of Democratic votes, but that's too bad. Having them vote gave us Obama. That should prove my point except that you aren't bright enough to understand it.
You see, Jim, the problem is easily rectified by encouraging real study of the issues and the candidates. Sure, that too would cut down on the the likelihood of Democratic victories, but the country would benefit.
But I understand that the left counts on the stupid or ignorant voter to put them over the top. They're so easily pandered to. And really, Jim, if even the mere suggestion that stupid people shouldn't vote gets your panties in a twist, how desperate for votes must you be? Are you so afraid that the more serious a voter is to get it right then the less likely it is that Dems can win? It's a legitimate fear and should tell you something about yourself.
I said it before and I'll say it again:
This "position" is about as f**ked up as they come. It's insane, moronic, arrogant, elitist.
Not to mention undemocratic.
Is it that people who don't take the act of voting for our nations leaders seriously shouldn't vote?
No, it's the idea that someone who doesn't come to the same conclusion as you doesn't take voting seriously.
I'm as political as they come, very aware of national political issues. I have done volunteer work for local congressmen and for the DNC. Anybody who thinks that because I voted for Obama I haven't studied the issues and don't take voting seriously is an idiot.
Having them vote gave us Obama.
Thank God in heaven. Otherwise we'd probably be at war with Iran, North Korea and still surging in Iraq.
We'd probably have gone further into depression than we did since the alternative couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time.
You see, Jim, the problem is easily rectified by encouraging real study of the issues and the candidates.
Here, I'll be you for a minute:
The average Republican voter does not study the issues. They listen to their "leaders" scare them about taking away guns, homos destroying the institution of marriage, Planned Parenthood committing infanticide, and Muslims instituting Sharia law in the US and then absolutely vote against their own economic interests election after election after election.
Now me:
That's their choice. I'll scratch my head, but I'll never suggest that they shouldn't be voting.
But I understand that the left counts on the stupid or ignorant voter to put them over the top.
Untrue, but what IS true is the right counts on the ignorant and frightened to put them over the top.
Anybody who casts a vote is serious about it as far as I'm concerned. And if they vote Democratic, they got it right in my opinion.
"Anybody who thinks that because I voted for Obama I haven't studied the issues and don't take voting seriously is an idiot."
Well, Jimmy. Enlighten me. What accomplishment made Barry Obumble the candidate of choice for you? Was it how he voted "present" more than most any other senator in Illinois? Was it his ability to get Ryan's sealed divorce records unsealed for all to see? Was it his voting against increasing jail time for gang-bangers convicted of killing on behalf of their gang? Was it his voting to prevent a self-defense plea of someone using a handgun to defend himself in a town that bans handguns? Was it his position that he wasn't prepared to defend the life of child who survived and abortion? And was there nothing in McCain's track record that overshadowed ANY of these stellar accomplishments? Did McCain hang with communists that weren't beating his ass in a Hanoi prison? Any domestic terrorists looking to support his public life? How about shady characters helping McCain buy property? Anything like that that equals Barry's noble pre-prez campaign life? It doesn't get better for you if you DID vet Obama yet still voted for him.
"We'd probably have gone further into depression than we did since the alternative couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time."
Is this McCain you're talking about, or Hillary. I'm sure that you being as political as they come you might have heard that Bush was termed out? Did you know that? So who's the alternative who could have done a better job of increasing the debt than Obama?
As to the average Republican voter, you haven't a clue. But you have stumbled on some truths despite your attempt to frame it in negative terms:
--Leftist politicians ARE trying to take away the individual's right to keep and bear arms, as evidenced by the fact that most every Democratically led city has had the most anti-2nd Amendment attitudes and laws. I give you Chicago as the current champ of anti-gun stupidity.
--Homosexual activists aren't the only ones destroying the institution of marriage, but they are playing their part.
--Planned Parenthood IS committing infanticide. This is not debatable at all.
--And there are indeed muslims that wish to see sharia law implemented in our nation. This is not debatable.
--It is not possible for the average Republican voter to be voting against their own economic interests when the philosophy of the Republican Party favors economic policies that improve life for the most people on either end of the economic spectrum.
It's the better choice and that you scratch your head wondering why Republican voters aren't taken in by the substance free (or Parkie-like, if you prefer) rhetoric of the left shows you aren't as politically savvy as you like to believe.
If there are ignorant voters, I would certainly prefer they ignorantly choose to vote conservatively as possible. That makes them right by default. Voting Democrat proves they're not bright. But I would prefer even more that they take the time to learn why voting conservative is the right move. The evidence abounds. The more people look, the more they find that the promises of the Dems are worthless because even when made sincerely, they are based on fantasy.
But your last line lends credence to my position. All you care about is that one casts a vote. That isn't good enough. One must have a real understanding in order to be serious and to be responsible since so much rides on the outcome. That was proven in the last prez election and it cost us big time.
Was it how he voted "present" more than most any other senator in Illinois?
I thought you said "issues".
Voting present is a common procedural practice in many legislatures.
It is not an issue.
Was it his ability to get Ryan's sealed divorce records unsealed for all to see?
Don't know who Ryan is and don't know what you are talking about.
It is not an issue.
Was it his voting against increasing jail time for gang-bangers convicted of killing on behalf of their gang?
I don't know the particulars of this including the context of the vote.
It is not an issue. And I'm 99.9% positive that you didn't study that "issue" in making your voting choice.
Was it his voting to prevent a self-defense plea of someone using a handgun to defend himself in a town that bans handguns?
I don't know the context of this vote.
Regardless, it was not and still is not an issue. And I'm 99.9% positive that you didn't study that "issue" in making your voting choice.
Was it his position that he wasn't prepared to defend the life of child who survived and abortion?
This is a lie that you just can't let go of.
Since Obama is pro-choice, this is an "issue" which would make me support him.
Did McCain hang with communists that weren't beating his ass in a Hanoi prison?
I don't know. Who Obama hung out with in college is not an issue to me. And since he didn't "hang" with communists as a lawyer and public servany, this is not an issue.
Any domestic terrorists looking to support his public life?
Sure, Dick Cheney, John Bolton among many more who weren't public figures. I don't care if Stalin risen from the grave supported Obama. One does not choose their supporters.
It was not an issue.
How about shady characters helping McCain buy property?
Which of his nine homes? Hard to tell.
It was not an issue.
It doesn't get better for you if you DID vet Obama yet still voted for him.
I saw every stupid non-issue that Fox Noise brought up. If they didn't vet him, then nobody did. I read his books. I listened to his speeches. I like his positions on real issues.
I'm sure that you being as political as they come you might have heard that Bush was termed out?
See? You ARE an asshat.
I was originally for Edwards. I would have been fine with Clinton if she had won. She didn't.
Leftist politicians ARE trying to take away the individual's right to keep and bear arms
One or two, but not the president and not the Democratic party.
Homosexual activists aren't the only ones destroying the institution of marriage, but they are playing their part.
Nonsense!
Planned Parenthood IS committing infanticide. This is not debatable at all.
It is as debatable as it gets.
And there are indeed muslims that wish to see sharia law implemented in our nation. This is not debatable.
It is not debatable because it is a nonsense notion.
I would certainly prefer they ignorantly choose to vote conservatively as possible. That makes them right by default. Voting Democrat proves they're not bright.
I got two words for you, Marshall: Sarah Palin.
If I were an ignorant imbecile I would know better than to vote for a ticket that included Sarah Palin on it.
Your final paragraph more than lends credence, it proves beyond a doubt. You ARE an idiot and an arrogant, elitist, asshat, un-American idiot at that.
Jim,
It seems clear that you think you get to define what constitutes an issue. To people who take voting seriously, character is an issue. Obama's past is filled with connections to people that cast doubt on his character. He was close to and mentored by an unabashed and unashamed communist and he was not merely "supported" by a domestic terrorist, but hosted by one. There is no parallel in McCain's life that allows an honest person to equate the two as regards character. (Leave it to a lib to label Cheney and Bolton "domestic terrorists". Fool.)
But it wasn't merely that Obama voted "present", but how common it was. Whether as a state or US senator, he never authored any bills or influenced anything of importance (if at all). He was an empty suit. It is indeed an issue when voting to know that someone who fancies himself a public servant actually served the public. He sat in a chair in the senate chamber, but did little else.
Jack Ryan ran against your Barry for US Senate and had to pull out when Barry somehow got his sealed divorce documents exposed to public scrutiny. His actress wife Jeri made an allegation that Ryan denied, but rather than risk embarrassment to his ex-wife and kids by trying to fight off the negative publicity, he bailed on his campaign, and the worthless Illinois Republican party thought a good replacement was Alan Keyes, who, while very bright, never won an election anywhere for anything. I'm surprised someone so political is unaware of this. If I'm not mistaken, and I very well could be, Obama won his primary election, or possibly it was his IL Senate race by virtue of a similar ploy against his opponent. Bottom line: he didn't win anything before too many brain dead Democratic voters bought into the marketing that led to his beating out Clinton and Edwards.
I indeed looked into Obama's voting record as often and as deeply as I could. There were plenty of sources of this info, none of which was Fox News as I don't recall learning of any of it from there. It wasn't hidden, like his college grades are, and the totality of his weak political record, together with his ACORN activism and idiotic radio interview wherein he shows that he should never have been given a classroom in which to pretend to be studied in the Constitution added up to a big zero for anyone who truly cares about this nation.
His position on REAL issues is no better. Obamacare is a disaster. His foreign policy, where it doesn't follow Bush's lead, has put Eastern European friends in a bad spot. His economic policies are typical liberal claptrap and his social policies are evil in the eyes of even nominal Christians.
More later.
It seems clear that you think you get to define what constitutes an issue.
I abso-f**king-lutely get to define what constitutes an issue. Only an arrogant asshat would suggest that voters don't decide for themselves what is an issue and what isn't.
To people who take voting seriously, character is an issue.
One of several.
Obama's past is filled with connections to people that cast doubt on his character.
To you maybe they cast doubt. To me they perhaps convey a diversity of experience and a chance to compare different philosophies.
He was close to and mentored by an unabashed and unashamed communist
I'm not sure who you are talking about here, but I really don't care much about that, since he has never advocated nor acted politically in support of communism nor communist principles. One can learn a lot about what is wise and unwise from a mentor regardless of the mentor's inclinations.
he was not merely "supported" by a domestic terrorist, but hosted by one.
Hosted? For tea and crumpets? As I recall, Bill Ayers was not participating in or advocating domestic terrorism when he served on the board of the Annenberg foundation. I was "hosted" by George C. Wallace once, but that didn't make me a segregationist.
But it wasn't merely that Obama voted "present", but how common it was.
Common? Obama voted "present" 130 times in over 4,000 votes (3.25%), a number of which were Democratic strategic votes. The Illinois legislature, unlike most other states, allows for the common use of a "present" vote as a procedural vote. This is not an issue. (Well not for me, anyway. Maybe for petty folks.)
Whether as a state or US senator, he never authored any bills or influenced anything of importance (if at all).
Not surprising, totally untrue. In Illinois he worked to pass legislation that reformed ethics and health care laws. He sponsored a law that increased tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare. He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained, and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations. During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, police representatives credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms. Source.
And in the US Senate:
Obama cosponsored the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act. He introduced two initiatives that bore his name: Lugar–Obama, which expanded the Nunn–Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons; and the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, which authorized the establishment of USAspending.gov, a web search engine on federal spending. On June 3, 2008, Senator Obama—along with Senators Tom Carper, Tom Coburn, and John McCain—introduced follow-up legislation: Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008. Source.
More...
Continuing...
when Barry somehow got his sealed divorce documents exposed to public scrutiny.
Who the hell is "Barry"? Do you have proof that Obama "got" anything exposed?
weak political record
Shown to be false. See above.
his ACORN activism
An absolute plus as far as I'm concerned.
idiotic radio interview wherein he shows that he should never have been given a classroom in which to pretend to be studied in the Constitution
I don't know what you are talking about.
Obamacare is a disaster.
This is a dishonest and delusional statement. PPACA is just getting started. It is already having positive affects on individuals and many of its most powerful provisions are yet to go into effect. The CBO says that over the next 20 years it will cut the deficit by well over $1 trillion. Academics and doctors agree that PPACA will improve the health care system in the US while providing access to many more people who are currently uninsured.
His foreign policy, where it doesn't follow Bush's lead, has put Eastern European friends in a bad spot.
This is bunk. He is a more effective foreign policy president than his predecessor.
His economic policies are typical liberal claptrap
Actually most of them (ending tax cuts for the wealthy excepted) are conservative "claptrap" opposed by conservatives now only because they don't want Obama to succeed.
his social policies are evil in the eyes of even nominal Christians
No, only the most radical Christians.
"Only an arrogant asshat would suggest that voters don't decide for themselves what is an issue and what isn't."
And being one, you insist what I regard as an important issue isn't an issue at all. Obama's character and what passes for a record of accomplishment, as well as his stated understanding of the US Constitution are in general, incredibly important issues by which he has demonstrated his unworthiness.
It is apparent that your notion of being a political animal doesn't include learning about he candidates you inevitably support.
SIOIA was a Kennedy-McCain bill that wasn't voted on in the senate and was rife with flaws. The brilliant one supporting it is not a feather in his cap.
FFATA of 06---Couldn't find much more than that his name was attached as co-sponsor. Seems Coburn did all the real politicing on this bill. Can't find much on the true impact of the bill.
Interfering with the profiling done by law enforcement is idiotic, as profiling is an important device for detecting the perpetrators of crime and preventing crimes from occurring.
You're not helping your case so far.
you insist what I regard as an important issue isn't an issue at all.
Guess I could have been clearer. Some, perhaps many, of what you regard as important issues are not issues for me. Others, which could be important are generally mischaracterized by you. Either my study of such an issue comes to a different conclusion, or as in the case of choice, your negative is my positive.
Obama's character and what passes for a record of accomplishment, as well as his stated understanding of the US Constitution are in general, incredibly important issues
I agree on character, and somewhat on accomplishments though much less than you (unless of course you voted for George W. Bush). I have no argument with his understanding of the US Constitution.
he has demonstrated his unworthiness.
Perhaps to you. But your opinion only counts for you. I disagree with it.
It is apparent that your notion of being a political animal doesn't include learning about he [sic] candidates you inevitably support.
You have not been paying attention. I learned a lot about the candidate I supported. I also studied McCain. I found Obama quite easily to be the better choice.
You're not helping your case so far.
Your comments in this regard are not important nor very meaningful. Obama was a senator for a short period of time, much of which was under Republican control which meant that the GOP decided what came to a vote.
Regardless, he didn't sit on a bench in the Illinois legislature nor the US Senate.
But I didn't base my vote solely on Obama's legislative record. I gave more weight to his educational background, his books, his pro-choice stance, his work for ACORN, his opposition to the Iraq war, and his support for social justice and fairness.
If you disagree, that's your prerogative. That's why we have elections. And that's why my vote, regardless of how I came to decide, counts just as much as yours.
No more than half of Obama's time in the US Senate was under Republican control. He began his time in Jan '05 and the Dems took control with the '06 mid-terms. Keep in mind also that the GOP losses in '06 were the result of less than conservative behavior of Republican politicians. Thus, the Repubs control of the Senate during Obama's time there was no better than half.
You don't know anything about his educational background because he has not chosen to reveal his test scores. He did not have a memorable college career as even those who taught him and went to school during his time is hard pressed to remember anything he did while there. His books are questionable as so much has been found to be less than an accurate telling of his own history, and even his authorship has been questioned. His pro-abortion stance is such that even many pro-aborts don't go as far as he does when it comes to late-term abortions and what might become of a child who survives an abortion. His work for ACORN was a sad case of harassing honest business owners who chose to protect the funds of their depositors from bad investments in troubled and decrepit neighborhoods. Nothing he did during his time as an activist led to any meaningful reforms in housing. His opposition to the Iraq War was as idiotic, if not more so, than the opposition of other lefties and anyone who can properly define what social justice actually is an what constitutes "fairness" would be hailed as the first one who can.
Once more, you show you didn't do your due diligence in vetting your choices if you pretend that there is anything meaningful in Obama's background that makes him a better choice for prez than McCain.
As far as McCain goes, he was liberal enough for any lefty. Regardless of his positions on issues that were in opposition to mine, he was far and away a man of better character (and remains so despite recent missteps) and anyone who can't see this is definitely to blind to be voting.
As to George Bush, the worst that you can say is that he was head and shoulders a better choice than either of his two opponents and better than the buffoon who is still running against him now that his first term is almost over. He, too, is a man of greater class and character than Obama will ever be. And I say this fully aware of his shortcomings as president. I've no doubt Bush will be remembered by history more positively than Obama. It's an easy bet.
Your last line is not accurate at all. Nothing you've said demonstrates why your vote counts a much as mine. It counts because that's how voting works, nothing more. But it isn't of the quality mine is because you voted for an idiot of epic proportions.
No more than half of Obama's time in the US Senate was under Republican control.
I don't really care. His legislative record does not rank high in my criteria.
You don't know anything about his educational background because he has not chosen to reveal his test scores.
I've never voted for anyone based on their test scores. I assume you voted for W. Based on HIS test scores?
Obama went to Harvard Law and graduated magna cum laude. I really don't give a s**t what his grades were up to then. I don't care about ANY specifics of his grades anywhere. Harvard doesn't give out "magna cum laudes" to people who haven't earned it.
those who taught him and went to school during his time is hard pressed to remember anything he did while there.
This is false. There are anecdotes from a number of his college classmates and teachers, including Harvard professor Lawrence Tribe for whom he did research. More here
His books are questionable
What does that mean?
so much has been found to be less than an accurate telling of his own history
Yes, he explains in the forward that some people and events are compressed for literary reasons. So?
his authorship has been questioned
So has his birth certificate. But only by lunatics. Everybody knows Bill Ayers wrote his books, right?
His pro-abortion stance is such that even many pro-aborts don't go as far as he does when it comes to late-term abortions and what might become of a child who survives an abortion.
Nobody in politics today is "pro-abortion". That is a Frank Luntz term favored by the dishonest. Obama is pro-choice and I agree with him. The rest of your "point" has been debunked many, many times. Give it up.
His work for ACORN was a sad case of harassing honest business owners
Horse s**t.
His opposition to the Iraq War was as idiotic,
That statement itself is idiotic drivel. Many people, including myself, were rightly always opposed to the Iraq war.
As far as McCain goes, he was liberal enough for any lefty.
Give me a f**king break. The only semi "liberal" things McCain did were opposing the Bush tax cuts (originally) and opposing torture.
he was far and away a man of better character
He is an opportunistic hot head hypocrite prone to rash decisions. I said it before and I'll say it again: Two words-Sarah Palin.
I've no doubt Bush will be remembered by history more positively than Obama. It's an easy bet.
It's OK to be delusional, I guess.
Your last line is not accurate at all. Nothing you've said demonstrates why your vote counts a much as mine. It counts because that's how voting works, nothing more. But it isn't of the quality mine is because you voted for an idiot of epic proportions.
Arrogant, elitist, un-American asshat!
"His legislative record does not rank high in my criteria."
Well, that's not only stupid, but one less item upon which you DID vote for him. There are few left.
"I've never voted for anyone based on their test scores. I assume you voted for W. Based on HIS test scores?"
You're the one who brought up his educational background. The bigger question is why his record is such a big secret, especially given his promise of transparency. Has anyone seen proof of his magna cum laude from Harvard? Are you aware of how many people at Harvard received such honors (the more the merrier, but the less meaningful as regards the competency of a presidential candidate).
The problems with his books go farther than what would be the result of compression. You'll have to prove the charge that only lunatics doubt his authorship of his books (though it might only be one of them). Otherwise, you're just an Obama suck up.
"Pro-abortion" is the accurate term for people supporting the right to abortion for any reason and Obama is one of them. An even more accurate term would indicate the true nature of the procedure, which is to end the life of a human being not yet born. But then, the morally corrupt parse words in order to legitimize bad behavior.
The tactics of ACORN and those who "organized" them are well known. The real horse shit is the attempts to, once again, legitimize bad behaviors.
McCain also worked to stifle political speech with his campaign finance reform activities, a truly leftist act, and his immigration policies were also less than conservative. You didn't study anybody, did you?
I'm aware of your fear of Sarah Palin. You libs can't handle strong, moral, intelligent and patriotic women.
There's nothing arrogant, elitist or un-American about the truth.
I'm aware of your fear of Sarah Palin.
I only fear her inasmuch as she might have brought her ignorance and incompetence to the White House. Since there is no chance of that since 2008, I have no fear whatsoever of the quitter.
You libs can't handle strong, moral, intelligent and patriotic women.
Laughable comment. Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Madeline Albright, Pamela Kagen, Barbara Boxer, just to name a few.
There's nothing arrogant, elitist or un-American about the truth.
The arrogance is insisting your opinion is the truth. Believing one person's vote has more merit than another's is un-American.
Your opinion of Palin is obviously drawn from SNL sketches and ignorant statements about her from incompetent liberal politicians and pundits.
Your rogues gallery of "strong, moral, intelligent and patriotic women" is what is laughable, although I'm unfamiliar with Kagen. But for those on the list who support abortion and/or same-sex marriage, the word "moral" must be discarded. That they all lean hard to port indicates a severe lack of intelligence and their notions of patriotism are thus suspect, regardless of their own sincere claims of patriotism.
I don't insist my opinion is truth, though it is strongly informed by truth. I do insist my opinion is better that YOURS in most, if not all the issues we've discussed and debated. That's not arrogance. It's conviction. You obviously lack conviction of your own opinions and beliefs if mine troubles you so much that you feel compelled to call me "asshat". Why not try stomping your feet and holding your breath?
This conviction manifests in my belief that my vote is more informed by reality than is yours and thus is possessed of greater merit than yours. Maybe you can explain what is unAmerican about my contention that a vote for Obama is an incredible act of stupidity.
I meant Elena Kagan, not Pamela. My bad.
This conviction manifests in my belief that my vote is more informed by reality than is yours and thus is possessed of greater merit than yours.
Your conviction is wrong.
Post a Comment