Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 07:14 pm
The world according to okie. Amazing!
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 07:19 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
The world according to okie. Amazing!


Obama is really coming apart at the seams! LOL


Okie's cluelessness reminds me of this right-wing radio puke on Hardball who doesn't have a clue either and merely regurgitates the party line without knowing WTF he is talking about.

Between the Obama smackdown of McBush, BOR's meltdown, the video posted above, talk of Karl Rove being arrested and the realization that Barack Hussein Obama is a mere months from being sworn in, being granted marriage equality, it sure is great being a leftist these days.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 07:30 pm
Falafel Guy Fatwa Video


"Body language expert" analyzes BOR's temper tantrum
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 07:37 pm
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
..... You don't have any idea what Obama will do or not do with any country.
Cycloptichorn

That I can agree with, and I doubt very seriously Obama does either.

Interesting, the most upset I have seen this guy is when he interpreted Bush as accusing him of being an appeaser. He thinks everything now is about him. Bush may not have even been thinking about him first and foremost, he may have been thinking about the likes of Jimmy Carter. Obama is not upset about Wrights statements about blankety blank America, and so on, no, the great Reverend Wright is taken out of context, he has done so many wonderful things, but boy I can sense the anger in Obama's voice now when he talks about Bush and McCain.

I think Obama is coming apart at the seams, there is a sensitive spot there, a weak spot, and he knows people are finding it now. He cites Truman, JFK, and Reagan among his examples for foreign policy, whoaa, now that is a stretch for sure. He expects us to believe that?

Direct question okie: Do you seriously believe that Bush's comments were not directed at Obama? Yes, or No?

I'm ready for georgeob1 to call me a bully because I ask direct questions. I'm also pretty prepared for your answer.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 08:18 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
Direct question okie: Do you seriously believe that Bush's comments were not directed at Obama? Yes, or No?

I'm ready for georgeob1 to call me a bully because I ask direct questions. I'm also pretty prepared for your answer.

T
K
O

I don't honestly know, Diest. I actually think he was directing his comments toward the school of thought, including the many individuals that may be buying into that school of thought. If an individual was at the top of the list, I honestly think Jimmy Carter fit it the best, as he was talking directly to terrorists. He purposely did not name names, he was talking about an approach that he rightly said has shown to fail in history.

It was Obama that interpreted his statements to be directed at him, which is revealing in and of itself, because Obama knows what he had said, which I think contradicts what he now claims he has said. Obama needs to grow up. This is not kid stuff anymore, this is serious foreign policy as the most influential leader of the free world, and it directly affects billlions of people. If anything, Obama should be agreeing with Bush instead of getting angry at Bush. Remember, Obama hesitated at first to condemn Carter as well. Obama is very suspect in regard to his attitudes and foreign policy toward terrorist organizations, states, and toward Israel. And he knows this, and is hypersensitive to any comments that he thinks might be even remotely criticizing him. But the time has come where he can no longer ride the fence forever and triangulate all different kinds of positions on issues in an effort to be all things to all people. He needs to take a position. And interestingly, he shows the most energy and animation in repudiating Bush. That tells me something, and it should be telling you something. It means all of this is about him, not the American people and what is in our best interests.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 08:28 pm
I'm confused. Obama sat in Wright's church for 20 years and can't remember hearing diddlysquat. He hears 20 seconds of a Bush speech in Israel that doesn't mention his name and heard everything.

Peculiar selective hearing he has.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 08:48 pm
Brand X wrote:
Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright


Your posts are a recursively annoying.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 08:51 pm
I dunno. BrandX's last post got a well defined chuckle from me. Smile
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 08:56 pm
Brevity is the soul of wit. And wisdom.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 09:04 pm
okie wrote:
Brevity is the soul of wit. And wisdom.



Except the joke is on you.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 09:09 pm
okie wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Direct question okie: Do you seriously believe that Bush's comments were not directed at Obama? Yes, or No?

I'm ready for georgeob1 to call me a bully because I ask direct questions. I'm also pretty prepared for your answer.

T
K
O

I don't honestly know, Diest. I actually think he was directing his comments toward the school of thought, including the many individuals that may be buying into that school of thought. If an individual was at the top of the list, I honestly think Jimmy Carter fit it the best, as he was talking directly to terrorists. He purposely did not name names, he was talking about an approach that he rightly said has shown to fail in history.

It was Obama that interpreted his statements to be directed at him, which is revealing in and of itself, because Obama knows what he had said, which I think contradicts what he now claims he has said. Obama needs to grow up. This is not kid stuff anymore, this is serious foreign policy as the most influential leader of the free world, and it directly affects billlions of people. If anything, Obama should be agreeing with Bush instead of getting angry at Bush. Remember, Obama hesitated at first to condemn Carter as well. Obama is very suspect in regard to his attitudes and foreign policy toward terrorist organizations, states, and toward Israel. And he knows this, and is hypersensitive to any comments that he thinks might be even remotely criticizing him. But the time has come where he can no longer ride the fence forever and triangulate all different kinds of positions on issues in an effort to be all things to all people. He needs to take a position. And interestingly, he shows the most energy and animation in repudiating Bush. That tells me something, and it should be telling you something. It means all of this is about him, not the American people and what is in our best interests.


You make two points I wish to address.

1) I won't dismiss that he may have been referring to Carter. I still question the appropriateness of playing politics this way.

2) If this is serious. If you are the most influential person on the international stage, then you have a responsibility with what you say. I agree. I don't think however that Bush illustrated this very well.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 09:14 pm
engineer wrote:
woiyo wrote:
engineer wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
What you are buying into is the right-wing media narrative. The code word 'appeasement' is the clue to this. You don't have any idea what Obama will do or not do with any country.

Right now we are sending many millions to North Korea and Pakistan. Are we appeasing them?

Cycloptichorn

You also have to define "appeasement". Holding talks with a country is not appeasement. Granting unilateral concessions to hopefully halt undesirable behavior is appeasement. I seriously doubt Obama would do that.


One could argue an immediate withdrawal of our troops, unconditionally, would be appeasement. This may be a likely course of action for Obama. He is campaiging on this issue of removing troops in 16 months.

Getting occupying troops out of a country we shouldn't be occupying is common sense. You could spin this as appeasment since the insurgents are committing what we would call undesirable behavior (resisting our occupation), but at the end of the day, we're in the wrong in Iraq.


Another misused word, "appeasement"! Please look it up! Bush should never use it, since he doesn't read and his speech writers make him look more stupid, because everyone KNOWS, he's as DUMB as a POST!

As far as Huckabuck Huckabee, he should leave comedy to Jay Leno! He's NO Jay Leno! The Secret Service should investigate his statement! Yuk! Yuk! He's a threat to the so-called "Homeland", wherever THAT, is! More "misleading" English thunked up by the "Busch's" posing as the Shrub family!
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 09:36 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright Rev Wright


Your posts are a recursively annoying.

T
K
O


I'm here for you.

B
X
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 09:49 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I dunno. BrandX's last post got a well defined chuckle from me. Smile


Make that two.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 09:59 pm
teenyboone wrote:
Another misused word, "appeasement"! Please look it up! Bush should never use it, since he doesn't read and his speech writers make him look more stupid, because everyone KNOWS, he's as DUMB as a POST!


Please enlighten us, teenyboone. How has Bush misused the word "appeasement"?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 10:05 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
teenyboone wrote:
Another misused word, "appeasement"! Please look it up! Bush should never use it, since he doesn't read and his speech writers make him look more stupid, because everyone KNOWS, he's as DUMB as a POST!


Please enlighten us, teenyboone. How has Bush misused the word "appeasement"?


Enlighten us? You mean enlighten you, singular. I am afraid that is not possible. For a clue, watch this.
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 10:43 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
teenyboone wrote:
Another misused word, "appeasement"! Please look it up! Bush should never use it, since he doesn't read and his speech writers make him look more stupid, because everyone KNOWS, he's as DUMB as a POST!


Please enlighten us, teenyboone. How has Bush misused the word "appeasement"?


Always ask a question you already KNOW the answer to huh?

Appeasement, literally: calming, reconciling, acquiring peace by way of concessions or gifts (the verb 'to pay' also goes back to the Latin 'pax' = peace). Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Usually it means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war. Since World War II, the term has gained a negative connotation in the British government, in politics and in general, of weakness, cowardice and self-deception.

A famous example is Neville Chamberlain's foreign policy during the period 1937-1939, when he pursued a policy of appeasement towards Adolf Hitler's expansionist ambitions.

Your leader, Bush, used the term against Democrats, again labeling them as "weak", conciliatory, painting them with a broad brush, when he spoke in Israel at the Knesset. Whoever wrote the speech for him, KNEW exactly what the effect, would be!

You Repugs are sad examples of so-called Americans! You roil the waters every chance you get, instead of unifying with your fellow countrymen! You hide behind lapel pins and the NRA, but I don't see ANY republicans strapping on a uniform to defend this country or fight Bush's draconian policies. For 8 years, you allowed a mad man to screw this country and its' citizens. You deserve Bush, Rove, Cheney and the sexual deviants, that call themselves "christians" and spew phrases like "family values", while they screw pages and buy whores, on government time!
SATISFIED? Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 10:50 pm
No, I'm very dissatisfied. You said he used the term against Dems, but you haven't explained how he misused the term.
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Sat 17 May, 2008 05:35 am
Ticomaya wrote:
No, I'm very dissatisfied. You said he used the term against Dems, but you haven't explained how he misused the term.


What can't YOU understand? Dyslexic? Bush compared Obama to Hitler, already! The media says it, Republican Pundits, think he was wrong also, so if this isn't enough, go to your own people and get a hint! All I'll say!

Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad Cool
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Sat 17 May, 2008 05:40 am
Tico:
Just for you! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs

It's all there, sir!

Cool
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 863
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 07/09/2025 at 11:49:25