Michelle Obama

@Woiyo9,

If Condi had come out with the history of her roots I certainly would have been interested. The history of slaves and their descendents interests me tremendously. From slavery to First Lady is a fascinating American story.

0 Replies

@parados,

There's truth to your point, but what is it's importance as respects Michelle Obama and the reverence this author and blueflame seem to exhibit for her and her situation?

That some people with no tangible contribution to civilization are better remembered than others who have clearly advanced it progression isn't evidence of anything I can find worthwhile and in no way creates a contribution where none existed.

There is a historic sigifigance to a descendent of slaves living in the White House as one of its primary residents, but that signifigance in no way reflects (positively or negatively) on Michelle Obama and her husband.

Nevertheless, it seems pretty clear that many would argue otherwise.

If there is a positive reflection from the event, and there should be, it falls on America and its people in 2008.

Having said this, it isn't required that Mr and Mrs Obama actually live in the White House in order for America to note and take pride in its progress.

The fact that Obama has won his party's nomination and stand poised to win the election has already taken America past an important milestone.

If Obama loses in November and his wife doesn't get to live in the White House, it will not be a setback in the progress of American society.

Unfortunately too many people would have us think otherwise.

The charges of racism are already primed for the possibility that Obama loses.

The great irony is that if racism does play a role in this election, it will be the racism of liberals.

2 Replies

@Miller,

Miller wrote:

Why ?

The A2K liberals habitually refuse to back up their statements, using justifications such as, "There'd be no point in trying to explain it to you," which simply means that they wish to be able to say what they wish without the tiresome task of having to demonstrate that it's actually true. When asked to demonstrate the truth of their assertions, this and ad hominems are among their favorite responses. It pretty much suggests that they're in the wrong about what they're saying.

1 Reply

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

No, just demonstrating that it is not difficult to find out who they were if you wanted to. You said it might be difficult to find out.

Um, no, he didnt.

What he said was that most people can name wives of past presidents from the top of their heads, but not members of cabinets. Suggesting that, rational or not, cabinet positions are pretty obscure over time compared to wives of Presidents.

2 Replies

@nimh,

Quote:

Um, no, he didnt.

What he said was that most people can name wives of past presidents from the top of their heads, but not members of cabinets. Suggesting that, rational or not, cabinet positions are pretty obscure over time compared to wives of Presidents.

Um, so what?

A trivial piece of contributed fluff?

So why waste nihmian time clarifying it?

0 Replies

@A Lone Voice,

I don't think she has a prayer. If she is elected President and she gives Scalia a fist bump, Scalia will deck her. I really don't understand how Obama and his wife can publically display a fist bump which is an integral part of gang banger ideology and practice. Do they really believe in that ****?

1 Reply

@nimh,

The quote..."History is a funny thing. Yes, anyone can research any arcane fact they want to but cabinet positions are pretty obscure over time compared to wives of Presidents. "

1 Reply

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

No, just demonstrating that it is not difficult to find out who they were if you wanted to. You said it might be difficult to find out. You were wrong.

When did I say it would be difficult? I didn't use that word at all.

Able to research something doesn't mean it is difficult to find it out. It only means it requires some research to do so. You had to google the names of cabinet members for those Presidents so you had to do some research. Most people in the US can name the wives of those Presidents without resorting to any research.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

Miller wrote:

Why ?

The A2K liberals habitually refuse to back up their statements, using justifications such as, "There'd be no point in trying to explain it to you," which simply means that they wish to be able to say what they wish without the tiresome task of having to demonstrate that it's actually true. When asked to demonstrate the truth of their assertions, this and ad hominems are among their favorite responses. It pretty much suggests that they're in the wrong about what they're saying.

Are you going to play that game again Brandon. You accuse other of running away from their statements when you are as guilty of it as anyone on this board.

Since you made this statement, please back it up with enough examples to show that all, most, or even a simple majority of liberals on A2K do what you say or be hoisted on your own petard. I realize that I am asking you to do a tiresome task in demonstrating your statement is actually true but you have no excuse not to do so after the statement you just made.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

There's truth to your point, but what is it's importance as respects Michelle Obama and the reverence this author and blueflame seem to exhibit for her and her situation?

Where do you get the idea that the author holds any "reverence" for Michelle Obama?

Quote:

There is a historic sigifigance to a descendent of slaves living in the White House as one of its primary residents, but that signifigance in no way reflects (positively or negatively) on Michelle Obama and her husband.

What is the point of your statement? Biographies of most first ladies and Presidents and others often delve into the background of their families and ancestors. It really has nothing to do with a requirement that it reflect positively or negatively on the person.

0 Replies

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

The quote..."History is a funny thing. Yes, anyone can research any arcane fact they want to but cabinet positions are pretty obscure over time compared to wives of Presidents. "

Right. Like I said, he didnt say it was difficult to find out. Just that you'd have to look it up ("research"). Which is exactly what you did - proving his point. Whereas wives of Presidents - many people wouldnt have to look that up.

Come on, people. Read what other people actually wrote before responding bullishly.

1 Reply

@SYNRON,

So now Elizabeth Hasselbeck and Barbera Walters are gangbangers? Shoot. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/michelle-obama-on-the-vie_n_107798.html

0 Replies

@nimh,

What the f do you know about Cabinet positions in the USA? The only thing you know anything about is the organization of the former Communists in the Hungarian government. I know it is tough to be an expatriate but don't you have any love for your country? Must you constantly demean any one and any agency that doesn't conform to your Crypto-Communist agenda?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

The racism of LIBERALS? Perhaps, but Finn, I am more taken with the explanation given by Irving Kristol. This great writer and neo-conservative reveals the true roots of the anxieties of the left.

Of course, Cyclo and Nimh, as products of the left "intelligentsia" fit PERFECTLY in Kristols' paradigm/ Kristol wrote:

P. 111

"Secondly, though a commercial society may offer artists, writers and intellectuals all sorts of desirable things-freedom of expression, popularity and affluence occasionally--it did( and does) deprive them of the status that they natrually feel themselves entitled to"

You see, Finn, Cyclo and Nimh and others like them think they should run the world and make the rules--after all, they are so much smarter than anyone else and they have the degrees--PHD, LLB, etc.

They really think that they are equivalent to Plato's philosopher kings.

Poor deluded souls!

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Miller wrote:

Why ?

The A2K liberals habitually refuse to back up their statements, using justifications such as, "There'd be no point in trying to explain it to you," which simply means that they wish to be able to say what they wish without the tiresome task of having to demonstrate that it's actually true. When asked to demonstrate the truth of their assertions, this and ad hominems are among their favorite responses. It pretty much suggests that they're in the wrong about what they're saying.

Are you going to play that game again Brandon. You accuse other of running away from their statements when you are as guilty of it as anyone on this board.

Since you made this statement, please back it up with enough examples to show that all, most, or even a simple majority of liberals on A2K do what you say or be hoisted on your own petard. I realize that I am asking you to do a tiresome task in demonstrating your statement is actually true but you have no excuse not to do so after the statement you just made.

No, I am not as guilty as anyone on the board of making specific assertions and then refusing to give support for them. In my opinion, there is a very pronounced pattern among board liberals of making assertions for which evidence or a plausibility argument could be made, but refusing to give any. In this case, Miller was told that it would be a waste trying to educate him. He asked why. Presumably, someone telling him this would be easily capable, if it were her legitimate opinion and not just a line, of saying a few words about what qualities he possesses which make it hard to educate him, but it's not usually the liberal way. Probably it was just an ad hominem, rather than a considered opinion springing from her observation of his behavior on the board.

However, there are different types of assertions. If, say, someone says that a person lied, it absolutely is incumbent on the accuser to find one or two examples. On the other hand, if you, for instance, say that I am as guilty as anyone on the board of making assertions which I refuse to back up, I might ask for one example, but it would be unfair of me to expect you to do a count of my assertions over the past few years to determine how many I was willing to back up and how many I was not willing to back up, and then do similar counts for other board members in order to compare me to them. I wouldn't expect you to do that, because it would require hundreds of hours of work, and it's clear that you're only stating your perception of me. In this case, I merely deny it. However, in a case in which someone is only being asked to give a brief explanation or a single example to support a specific assertion, especially an accusation, they really do have a duty to do it, or else stop making statements of that sort.

3 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

No, I am not as guilty as anyone on the board of making specific assertions and then refusing to give support for them.

Oh really, Mr. 'Osama, whoops, Obama'? You're a f*cking hypocrite, Brandon, and a yellow-bellied one at that.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon 9000, You have been called out by Cyclopichorn. Do you know who he is? He sits at a desk at Berkeley. You know, Berkeley, the town loaded with goofy superannuated left wing liberals left over from the 60's and 70's. They go to their wine and cheese parties and like Pauline Kael remarked--They are amazed when a Republican wins an election since no one they knew voted for him.

You are absolutely correct in your assertion. The LIBERALS are spineless cowards who are afraid to argue using evidence and documenation. They are masters in forcing people they cannot handle off these threads. They are frightened little men who urinate on themeselves when they encounter an agrument that makes them look bad.

Keep plugging away, Brandon. It is clear that you got under Cyclops' skin. He is not used to hearing deviations from the Liberal dogma on his Berkeley Island.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I'm not sure what your response has to do with my statement. I asserted specifically that I do not often make specific claims which I am then unwilling to support. Your answer doesn't appear to challenge my assertion.

3 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Oh, please, Brandon, Cyclops does not have to challenge your assertion. Don't you know who he is? He is Cycloptichron, member of the Berkeley far fring left LIBERALS , who don't think they know all the answers. They Know all of the answers.

Actually, Brandon, if Cyclops seemed piqued, there is a good reason for it. You see, he is a member of the so called "intelligentsia" who is consumed with hate for those who have worked hard and made millions for themselves. He really actually believes that after he and his colleagues have read all of the Socalist and Communist Bullshit books, they should be called upon to make the policy for the whole world.

Well, Brandon, he is living in a fool's paradise. As anyone who views the world scene knows, Communism is dead and Socialism is dying. Even the so-called Communist country, China, is slowly moving around to Capitalistic Practices.

Cyclo is a member of a dying breed, Brandon, The hippies graduated from slime pits like Berkeley in the 60's and 70's, went out to form communes and are now ensconsed in tenured positions where they poison the minds of the young.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Presumably, someone telling us that liberals habitually refuse to back up their statements this would be easily capable, if it were their legitimate opinion and not just a line, of providing enough concrete examples to support their statement. But then your failure to support your statement with anything close to achieving what you claimed shows you are guilty of what I said you are.

You make statements and then don't back then up when asked to. You are the worst kind of hypocrite.

0 Replies

Michelle Obama

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know