sozobe
 
  1  
Sun 24 Feb, 2008 10:39 am
What?

I'm so confused.

As far as I can tell:

1.) In this post, teenyboone quoted nappyheadedhohoho.

2.) In this post, Stray Cat said that teenyboone had it wrong, nappyheadedhohoho "didn't post anything here."

3.) I pointed out that actually, the post teenyboone was responding to was in fact on this thread, and was in fact posted by nappyheadedhoho.

Was there a post that was removed and I never saw, or something?

Anyway.

Moving on!
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Sun 24 Feb, 2008 10:45 am
teenyboone wrote:
You need a life! I find your online name racially offensive, as an African American and woman of color! Since you have no one running on the Repug side, you come here and post your racially divisive dribble! This is supposed to be about Obama, '08. You post nothing but negativity, while the rest of the country and Democrats, see Mr. Obama, for the phenomenon, he is! It's people like you, that give this country a bad name! You should start your own thread and leave this one.


This post - a rebuke to nappyheadedhohoho's earlier pasting of the Marc Steyn article here - marvelously illustrates what we will have to deal with as this goes on.

teenyboone characterizes Republicans as "Repugs"; labels any criticism, however formulated of Obama as "racially motivated"; faults nappy for posting "nothing but negativity" while the true believers here all clearly see the revealed truth; and suggests he leave this thread.

This kind of reaction to criticism of Obama has occurred here many times on this very active thread. It certainly does reinforce the notion of the cult-like character of the Obama movement, and the dangers it may portend for the country if he is elected. There are lots of historical models for this political phenomenon. Unfortunately they are all bad.

I see nothing in the nominal title of this thread; the rules of behavior on A2K; or among the normal patterns of discussions on the political threads here, that limits in any way the posting of criticisms of Obama's candidacy, positions, or proposals.

The irrational sensitivity of many Obama supporters to any criticism and their repeated inclinations to wish to expel from the thread those who don't merely reflect back their own adoration of their chosen hero, reflect badly on them and on the Obama movement itself. I believe it may well create a growing backlash (which will no doubt be mislabeled, just as was the reaction above to the posting of the Steyn article).
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Sun 24 Feb, 2008 10:50 am
Well, the poster in question has been trolling the thread for some time now. It isn't as if this is the initial response to their posting of any criticism.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Sun 24 Feb, 2008 11:14 am
teenyboone wrote:
sozobe wrote:
Guys...

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3110816#3110816

(Nappyheadedhohoho, on this thread.)

I received a message from the moderator, stating said post was taken down, so enough already. Not looking for this offensive person. Rolling Eyes


Thanks to all, but I can handle it :wink:
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Sun 24 Feb, 2008 11:20 am
Even some Democrats see the 'Obamatrons' going over the top:


Quote:
Obama Supporters Issue Death Threats Against Critic

Posted by Lee Ward
Published: Feb 23, 08 11:33 AM

Other bloggers' experiences are similar to mine. Obama supporters who, in their enthusiasm and zeal to support their candidate of choice, are acting out inappropriately.

http://wizbangblue.com/2008/02/23/obama-supporters-issue-death-threats-against-critic.php
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 24 Feb, 2008 11:23 am
georgeob, I disagree with one point you m ade about "backlash." IMHO, most people have already made up their minds on who they will vote for; if they hadn't, they haven't paying attention to all the news and blogs on this election.

There have been a myriad of information, both good and bad, on all the candidates running in this election.

People's perspective are influenced by varied reasons on why they chose candidate "Y" over candidate "Z." It's pretty much fixed in cement by now.
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Sun 24 Feb, 2008 11:23 am
snood wrote:
I too find your screen name offensive, just didn't want to be the first to say so.

If I'm the first, I would think that I'm not the last, but it's odd, that after Jim Crow, segregation, "code speak", used by those, who think I don't get it, perpetuate their so-called "Manifest Destiny", out of some small-minded, so-called superiority, that they can say and do anything, to anyone, they wish. The post was sent in it's entirety, along with the identifiers, needed, but anyway Snood, as civil activist Fannie Lou Hamer, would say, "I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired" and this small-minded poster, who gets thier kicks, from denigrating others simply because he's been taught to hate others, will get theirs in time, not from me, but a higher power, takes care of bigots, like this one and all the rest. Those who are commenting to defend them, have my sympathy too. What goes around comes around. Cool
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Sun 24 Feb, 2008 11:30 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
georgeob, I disagree with one point you m ade about "backlash." IMHO, most people have already made up their minds on who they will vote for; if they hadn't, they haven't paying attention to all the news and blogs on this election.

There have been a myriad of information, both good and bad, on all the candidates running in this election.

People's perspective are influenced by varied reasons on why they chose candidate "Y" over candidate "Z." It's pretty much fixed in cement by now.


This may be true in the primaries, ci, but the general is wide open. Particularly for moderates and independents with McCain as the likely Rep nominee. I'm still on the fence between Obama and McCain and will follow the campaigning during the months after the conventions leading up to Nov closely.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Sun 24 Feb, 2008 11:33 am
JPB wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
georgeob, I disagree with one point you m ade about "backlash." IMHO, most people have already made up their minds on who they will vote for; if they hadn't, they haven't paying attention to all the news and blogs on this election.

There have been a myriad of information, both good and bad, on all the candidates running in this election.

People's perspective are influenced by varied reasons on why they chose candidate "Y" over candidate "Z." It's pretty much fixed in cement by now.


This may be true in the primaries, ci, but the general is wide open. Particularly for moderates and independents with McCain as the likely Rep nominee. I'm still on the fence between Obama and McCain and will follow the campaigning during the months after the conventions leading up to Nov closely.



Anybody but Obama in 2008! Go McCain.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 24 Feb, 2008 11:34 am
JPB, I used to think the same way about McCain, but changed my mind based on a) his approval of torture, and b) his hawkish stance against Iraq and Iran. He should know bettern than to approve of torture under any circumstance; it's against domestic and international laws. We don't need another president that ignores laws. We also don't need to extend our wars in Iraq, and start another one in Iraq; we don't have the troops or the treasure to spend more on wars. The ground troops are paying a high price for staying in Iraq; and they're not even taken care of once they come home. That's criminal - in my mind.
0 Replies
 
hanno
 
  1  
Sun 24 Feb, 2008 11:36 am
I didn't vote last time cuz we thought it was cool not to, but I remember being glad both times GW got in (he wasn't as crazy the 1st term) because he seemed sincere, action-packed and un-intimidating, like I couldn't picture a guy of moderate intelligence having the capacity to do anything sneaky. As it turns out he's got a thicker skull than expected, and thinks more of himself, but hell, just getting re-elected could do that.

What I mean is, I think a lot of the appeal of Barack is that he's unassuming. Could be he really is mostly benign and guileless, but he's still way left and for big government. I keep hearing let's not make the same mistake, but that's exactly what we'd be doing and to a greater extent, and in the manner of overcompensating like a drunk driver, if we chose a heavy leftist/liberal against a moderate, just because he's a cuddly, approachable, goofball. And this when McCain is about as transparent and open as they come to begin with; despite having a measurable IQ and being in politics I think the man is incapable of subtlety.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Sun 24 Feb, 2008 11:37 am
not disagreeing with your positions, ci, just saying that folks have probably made up their minds within the parties as to who they will support, but much less so in the general.

There are folks like me (anyone but Hillary or a theocrat), folks like maporsche (anyone but Obama), and I'm sure there are plenty of anyone but McCain folks wandering around. Obama vs McCain will be a very interesting race in the general.
0 Replies
 
hanno
 
  1  
Sun 24 Feb, 2008 11:46 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
JPB, I used to think the same way about McCain, but changed my mind based on a) his approval of torture, and b) his hawkish stance against Iraq and Iran. He should know bettern than to approve of torture under any circumstance; it's against domestic and international laws. We don't need another president that ignores laws. We also don't need to extend our wars in Iraq, and start another one in Iraq; we don't have the troops or the treasure to spend more on wars. The ground troops are paying a high price for staying in Iraq; and they're not even taken care of once they come home. That's criminal - in my mind.


International laws? This is the USA, we made most of those laws, we obey 'em as long as we care to and not a second longer. Besides that, you must admit, he's seen both sides of the issue. Same with the middle east - you know he doesn't want another Vietnam for both reasons; not to make a big bloody mess, and not to be militarily impotent.

As for what we can't afford to do, macroeconomics breaks down when the bombs drop. This is the US, we do for ourselves. The liberals love that a good oversimplification - take this from here, put it there - they like to say socialized medicine and tighten our belts in the same sentence to throw possible predators off the scent.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Sun 24 Feb, 2008 11:52 am
teenyboone wrote:
eoe wrote:
You all know what happened. With the two or three Obama threads currently going, she obviously posted on the wrong one. Easy enough to do. It's all over the place.


She, who? This is the only thread, I'm on Cool


Sorry. This is what happens when one assumes...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 24 Feb, 2008 11:52 am
hanno, That would include the Geneva Conventions and the UN; they are international orgs.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Sun 24 Feb, 2008 12:06 pm
Obama: is America ready for this dangerous leftwinger?

Listen to the rhetoric of Barack Obama ... Gerard Baker

For most ordinary Americans, those not encumbered with an expensive education or infected by prolonged exposure to cosmopolitan heterodoxy, patriotism is a consequence of birth.

Their chests swell with pride every time they hear the national anthem at sporting events. They fill up with understandable emotion whenever they see a report on television about the tragic heroics of some soldier or Marine who gave his life in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Foreigners don't have to like America - and they've certainly exercised that freedom in the past few years. But most Americans can distinguish between the transience of policy failure and the permanence of the national ideal.

And surely even critics of the US could scarcely deny that there have been real causes for American pride in the past 25 years: the fall of the Berlin Wall; the victory in the first Gulf War in 1991; the nation's unity in grief and resolve after September 11. Heck, I suspect most Americans got a small buzz of patriotic pride this week when they heard that one of their multimillion-dollar missiles had shot a dead but dangerous satellite travelling at 17,000 miles per hour out of the sky so that it fell harmlessly to Earth.

But not, apparently, Michelle Obama, wife of the man who is now the putative Democratic candidate for US president, and at this point favourite to succeed to that job. In what might be the most revealing statement made by any political figure so far in this campaign season, Mrs Obama caused a stir this week. She said that the success of her husband Barack's campaign had marked the first time in her adult life that she had felt pride in her country.

This, even by the astonishingly self-absorbed standards of politicians and their families, is a remarkably narrow view of what makes a country great. And though she later half-heartedly tried to retract the remark it was a statement pregnant with meaning for the presidential election campaign.

Now, to be fair to Mrs Obama, she would surely have a point if she had said that it was a source of incomparable pride to her and all African-Americans that in a country with a long and baleful history of racial discrimination, one of their own was within serious range of becoming president. All but the most irredeemably racist Americans would surely agree with that.

But that was not what she said. She said this was the only time in her adult life that she had felt pride in America.

It was instructive for two reasons. First, it reinforced the growing sense of unease that even some Obama supporters have felt about the increasingly messianic nature of the candidate's campaign. There's always been a Second Coming quality about Mr Obama's rhetoric. The claim that his electoral successes in places like Nebraska and Wisconsin might transcend all that America has achieved in its history can only add to that worry.

Secondly, and more importantly, I suspect it reveals much about what the Obama family really thinks about the kind of nation that America is. Mrs Obama is surely not alone in thinking not very much about what America has been or done in the past quarter century or more. In fact, it is a trope of the left wing of the Democratic party that America has been a pretty wretched sort of place.

There is a caste of left-wing Americans who wish essentially and in all honesty that their country was much more like France. They wish it had much higher levels of taxation and government intervention, that it had much higher levels of welfare, that it did not have such a "militaristic" approach to foreign policy. Above all, that its national goals were dictated, not by the dreadful halfwits who inhabit godforsaken places like Kansas and Mississippi, but by the counsels of the United Nations.

Though Mr Obama has done a good job, as all recent serious Democrats have done, of emphasising his belief in American virtues, his record and his programme suggest he is firmly in line with this wing of his party.

This, I think, not his inexperience in public office, is the principal threat to Mr Obama's campaign. His increasingly desperate opponent, Hillary Clinton, keeps hammering away that his message is all talk and no substance - and she was joined this week by Mr Obama's likely Republican opponent in the November general election, John McCain.

But if you listen to Mr Obama's speeches, it is not the lack of substance but the quality of it that ought to worry Americans. His victory speech after his latest primary win in Wisconsin this week was a case in point.

There was no shortage of proposals. He plans large increases in government spending on health and education. He wants to tax the rich more to pay for it. He is against companies using the opportunities of free markets to restructure their operations in the US. He is vehemently protectionist. He continues to insist, despite the growing evidence that this left-wing nostrum would be lunacy, that the US must pull its troops out of Iraq with the utmost dispatch.

While he speaks of the need for Americans to move beyond partisanship ("We are not blue states or red states, but the United States" is a campaign meme), when you cut through the verbiage there is nothing to suggest he believes anything that is seriously at odds with the far Left of his party. If you think about it for a second, it's not really an accident that he has been endorsed by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson.

Though he talks with great eloquence about the future, he sounds for all the world like one of the long line of Democrats from George McGovern to Walter Mondale to Michael Dukakis, who became history by espousing policies and striking a rhetorical pose that was well out of the mainstream of American politics.

America is certainly moving left in the post-George Bush era. The long period of conservative ascendancy is clearly over, buried by a Republican Party of recent years that has preached intolerance and practised incompetence. That a new era in American politics is beginning is not in doubt. But are Americans really ready to leap all the way across in one go to embrace a European-style Left?


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article3412540.ece
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Sun 24 Feb, 2008 12:17 pm
JPB wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
georgeob, I disagree with one point you m ade about "backlash." IMHO, most people have already made up their minds on who they will vote for; if they hadn't, they haven't paying attention to all the news and blogs on this election.

There have been a myriad of information, both good and bad, on all the candidates running in this election.

People's perspective are influenced by varied reasons on why they chose candidate "Y" over candidate "Z." It's pretty much fixed in cement by now.


This may be true in the primaries, ci, but the general is wide open. Particularly for moderates and independents with McCain as the likely Rep nominee. I'm still on the fence between Obama and McCain and will follow the campaigning during the months after the conventions leading up to Nov closely.


Obama is drawing quite a few independents and moderates according to most polls and articles I have read. Votes which probably would have went to McCain.

Posted this before; but it still applies.

Obama Voters Impact McCain, Too

Quote:
What made the night historic was not so much the margins of Obama's wins - though those were impressive - but the scope and depth of his winning coalition. According to exit poll data, Obama prevailed in Virginia among while males, independents and young voters. In Maryland, he bested Clinton among rural voters, union households and catholic voters. Everywhere, as expected, he won huge margins of African American voters who turned out to vote in numbers far in excess of their proportion of the population. In Maryland, African Americans are 29 of the population but formed 37 of the electorate, while in Virginia the numbers are 20 and 29.


The results also show the ways in which Obama is exerting a huge gravitational pull on both races. Obama is drawing so many moderates and independents to the Democratic race from what would normally be the ranks of the Republican electorate that 1) he's rolling up large margins and stitching together a broader coalition, and 2) he's making the Republican electorate comparatively smaller, and more conservative. Exit polls noted that one half of Virginia's voters were evangelicals; one third were self-described as "very conservative" while only a quarter were independents. As a result, Mike Huckabee was able to take 41% of the state's Republican vote.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Sun 24 Feb, 2008 12:35 pm
Quote:
Obama: is America ready for this dangerous leftwinger?


The article is such Bull Crap that about the only still taking about it are Obama haters I should call them since they are eclipsing any so called obama worship in volume if not numbers.

Quote:
Hope is making a comeback and, let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change," she said during a rally in downtown Milwaukee.

"I have seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues and it has made me proud," she told supporters.


http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1074519

As you could plainly see if you were not blinded by a zeal of anti-Obama (so stupid this is turning into)Michelle Obama was talking about how nice it is that people are uniting around common issues and it makes her proud. Perhaps she could have said it is a proud moment to appease those ready to pick anything to do with Obama apart; but I think the words "for the first time in her life" were clearly a figure of speech given the context in which spoke them. It is the first time a black man had such a chance to be president and it is the first time more than just black supporters support a black candidate for President in such large numbers. Poor rural people are, moderates and white and young people are. It is a first to be so big and something to be proud of.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Sun 24 Feb, 2008 12:42 pm
revel wrote:
Obama is drawing quite a few independents and moderates according to most polls and articles I have read. Votes which probably would have went to McCain.


Right. Again, I don't disagree that Obama is drawing support from moderates and independents in the primaries <raises hand>. And he stacks up well against McCain in nationwide polling. However, at least some of Obama's crossover appeal was the anti-Hillary faction <raises hand again> which will not apply at the same levels in the fall.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Sun 24 Feb, 2008 01:05 pm
revel wrote:
Quote:
Obama: is America ready for this dangerous leftwinger?


The article is such Bull Crap that about the only still taking about it are Obama haters I should call them since they are eclipsing any so called obama worship in volume if not numbers.


Why would you think someone in another country hates Obama? Matter of fact, are you going to categorize anyone who has an opinion of Obama that differs from yours as 'haters'?

revel wrote:
Hope is making a comeback and, let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change," she said during a rally in downtown Milwaukee.

"I have seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues and it has made me proud," she told supporters.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1074519

As you could plainly see if you were not blinded by a zeal of anti-Obama (so stupid this is turning into)Michelle Obama was talking about how nice it is that people are uniting around common issues and it makes her proud. Perhaps she could have said it is a proud moment to appease those ready to pick anything to do with Obama apart; but I think the words "for the first time in her life" were clearly a figure of speech given the context in which spoke them. It is the first time a black man had such a chance to be president and it is the first time more than just black supporters support a black candidate for President in such large numbers. Poor rural people are, moderates and white and young people are. It is a first to be so big and something to be proud of.


That's your opinion and you are welcome to put (or take) words from Michelle's mouth and interpret her remarks to fit your agenda. It seems to upset you mightily if someone has a differing opinion of what she actually said, though. Why is that?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 535
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.54 seconds on 05/15/2025 at 02:05:07