Obama '08?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
To Cyclop. My God is God. Obama isn't.

To Fox: we're well aware of that. He's nobody else's god either. So enough with the bullsh*t. mkay?

Cycloptichorn

Hey you brought it up. I just responded appropriately. In my world it is not irrational to worship God and is appropriate to do so. Neither is it irrational to worship Obama if you see messiah-like qualities in Obama--it is manifested in those who can find no fault with him and who object to anybody voicing any fault they see--adamently protest it in fact. I just think that kind of adoration is a little scary for those who don't see Obama as a new messiah or anything close to that.

0 Replies

The New Yorker magazine is hardly a representative of the "conservative media" in this country - quite the contrary. For good or ill they have done worse for President Bush and many other political figures. It is simply absurd to suggest - as Cicerone has done - that this represents the start of the much forecast "swift boating" of the liberals favored candidate.

One can have whatever opinion he/she wishes about the magazine cover. For me it simply illustrates the often tasteless license the media generally apply to themselves in rationalizing the lengths to which they go to promote readership and get public attention. The New Yorker much more often derides Republican political figures and backs it up with much more negative commentary that occurs with the liberals they so obviously favor.

This time they have simply turned their vulgarity on a Democrat candidate, who is supported with a degree of enthusiasm and even zealotry that is unusual even in American politics. Metaphorical descriptions of Obama as the sainted hero or demigod of many of these supporters accurately reflect the truly unusual degree of their enthusiasm and their rather frantic reactions to any criticism of him arising from any quarter of the American body politic. Their sensitivity and irratibility on this issue merely illustrates the point. Cyclo's reactions above are a good example.

0 Replies

The swift boat term has been hijacked, and further, where is the evidence their claims were untrue. None that I've seen. Kerry was simply undone, for what he was in regard to Vietnam, a fraud, just like his Winter Soldier hoopla. That has been documented.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The New Yorker magazine is hardly a representative of the "conservative media" in this country - quite the contrary. For good or ill they have done worse for President Bush and many other political figures. It is simply absurd to suggest - as Cicerone has done - that this represents the start of the much forecast "swift boating" of the liberals favored candidate.

One can have whatever opinion he/she wishes about the magazine cover. For me it simply illustrates the often tasteless license the media generally apply to themselves in rationalizing the lengths to which they go to promote readership and get public attention. The New Yorker much more often derides Republican political figures and backs it up with much more negative commentary that occurs with the liberals they so obviously favor.

This time they have simply turned their vulgarity on a Democrat candidate, who is supported with a degree of enthusiasm and even zealotry that is unusual even in American politics. Metaphorical descriptions of Obama as the sainted hero or demigod of many of these supporters accurately reflect the truly unusual degree of their enthusiasm and their rather frantic reactions to any criticism of him arising from any quarter of the American body politic. Their sensitivity and irratibility on this issue merely illustrates the point. Cyclo's reactions above are a good example.

Aw, George, that's not very nice.

It's irrational and a sign of zealotry - to object to terminology that paints one as irrational and a zealot?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

The swift boat term has been hijacked, and further, where is the evidence their claims were untrue. None that I've seen. Kerry was simply undone, for what he was in regard to Vietnam, a fraud, just like his Winter Soldier hoopla. That has been documented.

So Okie when you post as you did this morning naming me (dyslexia) in your feable attempt to disparage Kucinich and then go back and edit to delete your comments about me you are not a fraud? Months ago i though we had a truce, i would no longer call you a scum sucking pig if you would stop attacking me personally and rely on attacking my thoughts in a somewhat rational manner, but NO you simply cannot stop yourself. The truce is canceled on my part and you are back to being a scum sucking dishonest pig.

0 Replies

February 18, 2008 - Chicago Illinois

WE ARE THE ONES WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR

Complete with a gospel choir singing in the background at the finale.

If McCain was a better campaigner, Obama would already have had so many of the wonderful sounding words in this speech fed back to him. And it isn't too late for that to happen.

0 Replies

georgeob, BTW, swift boating can occur both ways; left against the right, and right against the left.

0 Replies

As one of the lead Obama acolytes that worship at the Obama Temple on A2K, I find it curious that Cycloptichorn would now question his own diety of the moment. Why not take on what is obviously your calling?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

February 18, 2008 - Chicago Illinois

WE ARE THE ONES WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR

Complete with a gospel choir singing in the background at the finale.

If McCain was a better campaigner, Obama would already have had so many of the wonderful sounding words in this speech fed back to him. And it isn't too late for that to happen.

We are the ones we've been waiting for.

What does that mean to you? I'm honestly curious. What do you think Obama means when he says that?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I think it means "my way or the highway".

Hope he has big thumbs.

0 Replies

I saw the art and I loved it. I'm thinking there may be a generational disconnect here.

I look at the cover and I see intentional irony. The kind of humor that makes Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert so popular. I can't think of the phrase "secret Muslim" without breaking a smile and rolling my eyes. While some older liberals may see this and smell attack, I think younger individuals see this, and immediately zoom in on the punchline. As stated, the article was very pro-Obama, so I think the intent was to be shocking. Perhaps graba new reader.

From a journalistic standpoint too, you have to remember that a journalist is going to have zero control over the graphics. That's literally somebody else's job.

As for Obama's campaign, and their response, speaking solely from a strategic perspective, you have to address this kind of thing for what it is NOT.

I also, think the notion of hypersensitivity is pretty bogus. Hypersensitivity, would be to respond in arms to the slightest insignificant thing. The caricature of Obama as a secret muslim has been going on for a long time. The fact of the matter is that it isn't true, but still it forces Obama to have to affirm that he is in fact not a secret muslim. It additionally forged his campaign to be more religious in general, a move that the right seemed to poster insincere outrage over.

When McCain finally starts catching heat for his infidelity, you can bet that he is going to be doing his best (which I don't expect to be that great) to present himself as a family man; a loving husband. Would his reactions be simply political or would they be "hypersensitive?"

It's not genuine to call a response overly sensitive. This is the game of politics. Action-reaction. Can't have one without the other.

T
K
O

0 Replies

I take offense at people who think Michelle looks to be painted as a terrorist. I guess that's the intention of the cartoonist, but in reality, she just looks like a chick with a gun.

But that dog don't hunt.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

okie wrote:
The swift boat term has been hijacked, and further, where is the evidence their claims were untrue. None that I've seen. Kerry was simply undone, for what he was in regard to Vietnam, a fraud, just like his Winter Soldier hoopla. That has been documented.
So Okie when you post as you did this morning naming me (dyslexia) in your feable attempt to disparage Kucinich and then go back and edit to delete your comments about me you are not a fraud? Months ago i though we had a truce, i would no longer call you a scum sucking pig if you would stop attacking me personally and rely on attacking my thoughts in a somewhat rational manner, but NO you simply cannot stop yourself. The truce is canceled on my part and you are back to being a scum sucking dishonest pig.

Dyslexia, the truth of the matter is that I edit lots of my posts, and in this case, I thought better of my sarcasm. Nothing fraudulant about that, unless you wish to label second thoughts and an effort to be nicer to you as fraudulant? Besides, the line I had about you supporting Kucinich, I think is much nicer than the terminology you choose most of the time. If you can cite a point of dishonesty, and if I think it was dishonest, I will own up to it, if I don't, then I will point out why I think it isn't. Most of my challenges for you to take the high road and provide evidence, goes unheeded. If you ever wish to change that, anytime is a good time to start.

I know you liked Kucinich, and I credit Kucinich for being somewhat of an honest leftist, hence the communists openly support him because he is so open about his politics, but aside from the purported honesty, there isn't much more there to be attractive as a candidate in my opinion, unless you are an avowed socialist or communist.

0 Replies

Don't get me wrong CI, I think they could have done better to deliver th irony.

T
K
O

0 Replies

okie wrote: "...somewhat of an honest leftist, ..."

Is about the biggest bull I've seen on a2k; as if all righties are always honest. Give me a phrek'n break! Your implications are tortuous.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie wrote: "...somewhat of an honest leftist, ..."

Is about the biggest bull I've seen on a2k; as if all righties are always honest. Give me a phrek'n break! Your implications are tortuous.

I honestly believe many leftists are not completely open about their true beliefs, ci. One exception may be Kucinich. There are solid reasons why I think I am totally correct on this point, because leftists know that if they divulge all of what they believe, they cannot get elected, thus they adopt a strategy of incrementalism. This is of course a well known and documented strategy. Conservatives also have to polish their political beliefs in the most attractive light, but nowhere nearly to the point of dishonesty as leftists do, in my opinion.

You are right, politicians are not generally very frank or blunt, across the board, but leftists have to use incrementalism to even get to first base, because they believe in stuff that is totally averse to what America stands for and aspires to be.

0 Replies

If McCain agreeing with George Bush = McSame... does Obama agreeing with McCain = Osame?

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-centrists13-2008jul13,0,7130991.story

Since Obama and McCain seem to agree on so many things, that must mean that Obama = McCain = Bush.

0 Replies

http://www.athenswater.com/images/NOBAMA.jpg

..m'kay

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know