Getcher fresh hot racist DS
Mike Beede
<http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080513&name=Mallard_Fillmore>
I really have no comment, except to say that he just keeps getting
worse and worse. Geeze, it's more embarrassing than the dream where
I don't have any pants.
Mike Beede
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
I thought that dream was pretty good! We all had a good laugh at your
expense anyway..
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
racs...@gmail.com
> <http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080513&name=Ma...>
>
> I really have no comment, except to say that he just keeps getting
> worse and worse.
What's wrong with it? I can't stand the duck, but here he has Wright
make some loony statements and Obama tell him his 15 minutes of fame
are up.
Granted, he's said a lot of things that weren't loony. But he did say
those things.
And Obama distanced himself.
And we can hope that his 15 minutes of fame are up, though I doubt it.
So ... ??
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
wrote:
Plus, some have opined that Rev. Wright's performance at the National
Press Club was an attempt to extend his 15 minutes.
William...@gmail.com
racist?
Detox
> <http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080513&name=Ma...>
>
> worse and worse. Geeze, it's more embarrassing than the dream where
> I don't have any pants.
>
> Mike Beede
Racist?? How??
Lame...perhaps.
Sounds like more of the special rules for Mr. Obama's campaign.
Tongue slightly in cheek.
Regards,
Dann
http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Recently updated!! Honest!
LNER...@juno.com
>
> Lame...perhaps.
>
It sure appears to me that the original poster, by screaming "Racist!"
in his subject/title about a strip that simply cites (condensed) facts
in a critical and sarcastic manner about the Obama/Wright campaign,
has ironically proven Tinsley's entire theme for the past week or
more.
Can someone give me a supplier and catalogue number for a new irony
meter, please?
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>On May 13, 1:24 am, Mike Beede <be...@visi.com> wrote:
>> <http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080513&name=Ma...>
>>
>> I really have no comment, except to say that he just keeps getting
>> worse and worse. Geeze, it's more embarrassing than the dream where
>> I don't have any pants.
>>
>> Mike Beede
>
>Racist?? How??
>
>Lame...perhaps.
>
>Sounds like more of the special rules for Mr. Obama's campaign.
>Tongue slightly in cheek.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/6rfu4m
>
. . .
Wfas there a point to that link?
Oh, and this might work a little better . . .:
Dann
news:6spj245sm6fkiomn3...@4ax.com.
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 08:21:58 -0700 (PDT), Detox <deto...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On May 13, 1:24 am, Mike Beede <be...@visi.com> wrote:
>>> <http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080513&name=M
>>> a...>
>>>
>>> I really have no comment, except to say that he just keeps getting
>>> worse and worse. Geeze, it's more embarrassing than the dream where
>>> I don't have any pants.
>>>
>>> Mike Beede
>>
>>Racist?? How??
>>
>>Lame...perhaps.
>>
>>Sounds like more of the special rules for Mr. Obama's campaign.
>>Tongue slightly in cheek.
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/6rfu4m
>>
>
> . . .
>
> Wfas there a point to that link?
Sure. Anyone that comes up with a criticism of Mr. Obama's platform...or
of Mr. Obama...is generally in for at least a few cross words from his
campaign and/or his defenders tossed their way. No response to the
charge. Just counter charges of being divisive, counterproductive, and
occasionally racist.
Perhaps Mr. Beeded was intending to be humourous or ironic with the
thread title. If not, then it seems to prove the point, no??
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Mike Beede
Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps Mr. Beeded was intending to be humourous or ironic with the
> thread title. If not, then it seems to prove the point, no??
I intended to indicate that weeks and weeks of strips that couldn't
be written if Obama was white seemed . . . racist. The fact that
most of them had the "gag" that anyone that criticises him is
labeled a racist was grating on me, too. If it looks like a duck
and quacks like a duck . . . it isn't Mallard Fillmore.
By the way, it's kind of like "banana"--you end it after the
third vowel.
Mike Beede
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Well, first here's your corrected link again . . .:
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/6rfu4m>
No, actually; whether it's Rev. Wright, or the lapel pin thing, or
saluting the Pledge of Allegiance, the "big" arguments really do have
no merit as serious issues, and really do fall into the distraction
category; if you can come up with genuine examples of serious charges
that have been dismissed similarly, go ahead and show 'em . . .
--
- ReFlex 76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot
girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between
looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
Dann
E49E1E.200...@news.visi.com.
> In article <Xns9A9DCC1DD6578d...@64.209.0.81>,
> Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps Mr. Beeded was intending to be humourous or ironic with the
>> thread title. If not, then it seems to prove the point, no??
>
> I intended to indicate that weeks and weeks of strips that couldn't
> be written if Obama was white seemed . . . racist. The fact that
> most of them had the "gag" that anyone that criticises him is
> labeled a racist was grating on me, too. If it looks like a duck
> and quacks like a duck . . . it isn't Mallard Fillmore.
Ah...so irony, no?
> By the way, it's kind of like "banana"--you end it after the
> third vowel.
Ben having trouble with that fingr lateely. May have to visit the
robotics technician for an acjustment.
Dann
> No, actually; whether it's Rev. Wright, or the lapel pin thing, or
> saluting the Pledge of Allegiance, the "big" arguments really do have
> no merit as serious issues, and really do fall into the distraction
> category; if you can come up with genuine examples of serious charges
> that have been dismissed similarly, go ahead and show 'em . . .
Not worth the time.
Although I will offer that while the above issues are not definitive,
they do help create an impression of Mr. Obama, his thoughts, and his
priorities. It does matter to some folks that they are electing someone
that feels the same way they do about their country. And the Rev. Wright
affair does show a lack of judgement, IMO.
Add to them the serial instances where he has claimed that questionaires
were incorrectly completed by staffers. Add to that his anti-trade
rhetoric issued for domestic consumption that is later recanted to our
trade allies in private by campaign aides.
He's starting to make Mrs. Clinton look politically attractive...and
that's saying something!!
OTOH, he is right about the gas tax "holiday" being a counterproductive
gimmick.
Mike Beede
Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ah...so irony, no?
Well, a little. But it would be weasely to say yes. Maybe
twenty percent, but the rest was serious.
Of course, I get most of my news from the comics page, so
I can't claim the depth of knowlege may posters seem to have
of the political minutia. That gives me a rather . . . odd
and somewhat naive perspective.
Mike Beededede
pete...@gmail.com
> In article <Xns9A9DCC1DD6578detox665hotmail...@64.209.0.81>,
>
> Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps Mr. Beeded was intending to be humourous or ironic with the
> > thread title. If not, then it seems to prove the point, no??
>
> I intended to indicate that weeks and weeks of strips that couldn't
> be written if Obama was white seemed . . . racist. The fact that
> most of them had the "gag" that anyone that criticises him is
> labeled a racist was grating on me, too. If it looks like a duck
> and quacks like a duck . . . it isn't Mallard Fillmore.
I don't get your position. I don't follow DS, since the duck
isn't witty or well informed. I looked at the strip cited, and
I see (valid) criticism of the Wright and his behaviour.
The only reference to Obama is the Wright's telling him to
'sit down' (referencing Obama's repudiation of Wright).
The strip is a criticism of Wright. Its not racist, nor is
it anti-Obama. It's saying 'Wright's being an idiot, and
even Obama thinks so'.
The Duck, in this case, is right.
pt
racs...@gmail.com
> In article <Xns9A9E4DAA21350detox665hotmail...@64.209.0.81>,
>
> Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Ah...so irony, no?
>
> Well, a little. But it would be weasely to say yes. Maybe
> twenty percent, but the rest was serious.
>
> Of course, I get most of my news from the comics page, so
> I can't claim the depth of knowlege may posters seem to have
> of the political minutia.
Stick around. The June posters are going to really go into depth!
Mike Peterson
Pileon Falls, ME
Jym Dyer
> is that racist?
=v= As a standalone, out of context of this arc of duck shit,
the one strip is just a weak rant, much like nearly-identical
weak rants done by weak (but at least more timely) cartoonists
at the time of the Rev. Wright hubbub.
=v= This arc of _Mallard_ strips is clearly racist, though.
It's like one of those jerky white guys who prefaces a tirade
with, "Some people would call me racist for this, but ...."
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> "Racist!" in his subject/title about a strip that simply
> cites (condensed) facts in a critical and sarcastic manner
> about the Obama/Wright campaign, has ironically proven
> Tinsley's entire theme for the past week or more.
=v= Blithering nonsense. Just because one strip, taken out
of its context, is merely lame doesn't erase the fact that its
context and the strips preceding it *are* racist.
<_Jym_>
William...@gmail.com
Nonsense to you. He cited this strip in particular. He didn't provide
any context other than this was the worst example of it. Well, if this
is the worst, certainly the rest are even more lame and even less
racist.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
fun!:
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/6rfu4m>
On 14 May 2008 11:46:08 GMT, Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 13 May 2008, Antonio E. Gonzalez said the following in
>news:meek2419vknv27puc...@4ax.com.
>
>> No, actually; whether it's Rev. Wright, or the lapel pin thing, or
>> saluting the Pledge of Allegiance, the "big" arguments really do have
>> no merit as serious issues, and really do fall into the distraction
>> category; if you can come up with genuine examples of serious charges
>> that have been dismissed similarly, go ahead and show 'em . . .
>
>Not worth the time.
>
Translation: "Aww crap, I'm caught lying again!"
Or at least IMO . . . ; )
>Although I will offer that while the above issues are not definitive,
>they do help create an impression of Mr. Obama, his thoughts, and his
>priorities. It does matter to some folks that they are electing someone
>that feels the same way they do about their country.
That being . . .
And the Rev. Wright
>affair does show a lack of judgement, IMO.
>
How?
>Add to them the serial instances where he has claimed that questionaires
>were incorrectly completed by staffers.
???
Add to that his anti-trade
>rhetoric issued for domestic consumption that is later recanted to our
>trade allies in private by campaign aides.
>
Turned out to be Rovian Projection by the Hilary campaign; if you
can prove he actually did this, you're free to cite . . .
>He's starting to make Mrs. Clinton look politically attractive...and
>that's saying something!!
>
Sounds like someone's bitter!
>OTOH, he is right about the gas tax "holiday" being a counterproductive
>gimmick.
That would fall under the "Well, DUUUH!" category . . .
Mike Beede
<2a9750b2-212b-42c6...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
William...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry. I assumed since there was a calendar of links that people
that don't read Da Duck would be able to look at it if they wanted.
I looked back to March 1st and found most of the strips where he
mentions Obama's race. I skipped a couple for no reason I can
articulate. I think this is around half the strips that featured
him. I skipped today's strip, since it hadn't appeared when I posted
my rant. I included all the "funny liberal guy(tm) sez it's
racist to XXX" strips, since they were what chapped me the most.
Maybe it doesn't bother anyone else, but it reminds me strongly of
the barber shop I quit going to because I got tired of hearing
how "I'm not a racist, but THOSE people are blah blah blah."
<http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080313&name=Mallard_Fillmore>
<http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080327&name=Mallard_Fillmore>
<http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080403&name=Mallard_Fillmore>
<http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080404&name=Mallard_Fillmore>
<http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080408&name=Mallard_Fillmore>
<http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080412&name=Mallard_Fillmore>
<http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080421&name=Mallard_Fillmore>
<http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080509&name=Mallard_Fillmore>
<http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080510&name=Mallard_Fillmore>
<http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080512&name=Mallard_Fillmore>
<http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080513&name=Mallard_Fillmore>
Mike Beede
racs...@gmail.com
> On 13 May 2008, Antonio E. Gonzalez said the following innews:meek2419vknv27puc...@4ax.com.
>
> > No, actually; whether it's Rev. Wright, or the lapel pin thing, or
> > saluting the Pledge of Allegiance, the "big" arguments really do have
> > no merit as serious issues, and really do fall into the distraction
> > category; if you can come up with genuine examples of serious charges
> > that have been dismissed similarly, go ahead and show 'em . . .
>
> Not worth the time.
>
> Although I will offer that while the above issues are not definitive,
> they do help create an impression of Mr. Obama, his thoughts, and his
> priorities. It does matter to some folks that they are electing someone
> that feels the same way they do about their country. And the Rev. Wright
> affair does show a lack of judgement, IMO.
While I'd like the current crop of scoundrels swept out, and I don't
think the "straight talk express" has shown any real independence, I
have to admit that you are correct in this: Laying out philosophical
arguments and explaining your policy proposals is election year
poison.
Walter Mondale said "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He
won't tell you. I just did." Very honest, very frank. And we saw the
results.
One of the speculative fiction/fantasy/dystopia novels -- I forget
which -- had a president who was genial and wore flannel shirts and
had the booboisie completely in his pocket. It was written long before
the Reagan years, and it wasn't a slam on Reagan -- it was a
commentary on the fact that people want to be comfortable, they like
symbols, they don't want to think too hard.
There's an old joke that an economist is like a guy who knows 100 ways
to make love but doesn't have a girlfriend. Too often in recent years,
the Democrats have been in that boat -- lots of theory, but ... well,
Clinton essentially won on a "Shut up and kiss me" platform. He was a
schmoozer and a dirty dog and people loved him. The Gennifer Flowers
stuff came out early on, and people said, "Yeah, well, I'd do her,
too, so what's your point?" The Republicans wasted eight years
screaming "He has a penis! And he likes to use it!" and nobody cared
except the other people in the echo chamber.
The idea that you can get elected by making true statements about
important issues is like thinking you can write an intelligent 30-
minute comedy with solid writing and good acting and beat the dumb,
predictable show on the other channel that has bad acting and jokes
about poop. Just look at the ratings, look at the shows that survive,
tell me on what planet you think your theory will play out?
>
> Add to them the serial instances where he has claimed that questionaires
> were incorrectly completed by staffers.
Only vaguely an issue. Excuse me -- only vaguely true. An issue
because ... see above.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gunning_for_obama.html
>Add to that his anti-trade
> rhetoric issued for domestic consumption that is later recanted to our
> trade allies in private by campaign aides.
Are you talking about that thing with the Canadians? That was
recanted, rejected, rebutted. It turned out to be horseshit.
But, yes, see above.
>
> He's starting to make Mrs. Clinton look politically attractive...and
> that's saying something!!
Now, now, let's not be silly.
>
> OTOH, he is right about the gas tax "holiday" being a counterproductive
> gimmick.
Which was acknowledged everywhere but West Virginia, where they like
the Clinton/McCain plan.
And where they think Obama is a Muslim.
And a fifth of them voted for Clinton because she's not black.
If they had enough electoral votes to blow their nose, I'd worry about
this.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Mike Marshall
>It's like one of those jerky white guys who prefaces a tirade
>with, "Some people would call me racist for this, but ...."
Oh, *those* people. Bleghh...
-Mike
Renee
First, claim that you can't say this and that without being called a
racist, say something racist, then when someone calls you on it, you
can claim that your first statement is obviously correct.
Renee
Jym Dyer
=v= Wha-a-a? And here I was, thinking it was because a great
wave of feminist consciousness had taken hold in West Virginia.
<_Jym_>
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
Some of my best friends are *those* people!
LNER...@juno.com
example, one says "a black man can't be president" or "he's an uppity
ni**ah". It doesn't apply if one says "Obama is inexperienced" or "he
has a terrible foreign policy and a worthless economic policy"--
inasmuch as some of Obama's defenders seem to want to lump the latter
type of criticism as "racist." Even worse, it's possible to say the
company Obama chose to keep, or the political environment from which
he arose (Illinois Democrat machine), is a valid criticism without
having a racist molecule in your body, but "race hustlers" will spin
it to say "You're being a racist!"
Renee
I don't think that actually happens. I never actually hear people
called racist for criticizing Obama for inexperience and other valid
points. But, I do hear over and over that you will be called racist
if you do. So, the end result is similar to if they were being called
racist. In that people can actually say racist things, but they will
be dismissed because they are lumped together with the valid
critcisms.
Renee
Detox
I understand and appreciate your point.
One of the reasons why this particular MF arc does such a poor job is
because there aren't any [that I know of] instances where someone has
been outright criticized as being racist for registering objectively
non-racist criticisms of Mr. Obama and/or his agenda.
However, there is a lot of media spin that conflates not voting for
Mr. Obama with being a racist. Even our own, beloved Mr. Peterson
managed to slur the entire state of West Virginia with that label* as
a result of Mrs. Clinton's recent primary victory.
Thus the literal message presented in this MF arc is demonstrably
false while at the same time the implication that it is racist to
oppose Mr. Obama exists within context of discussing his campaign.
I find that implication to be most frustrating as it places the voter
in the position of being declared a racist if they don't support this
particular black man running for the Presidency when the same voter
might well be very willing to vote for another black man....or
woman....if they were to run for the same office. For example, I
would be quite happy to vote for Condi Rice** for President of the
US. Colin Powell is another example of someone that enjoys a great
deal of positive sentiment among the US public.
*I'm working on a more direct response to the message in question.
**Yes, Reflex. I know. Thanks any ways. <grin>
Regards,
Dann
Ted Kerin
<LNER...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:2767cdd7-ec57-426f...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> It doesn't apply if one says "Obama is inexperienced" or "he
> has a terrible foreign policy and a worthless economic policy"--
> inasmuch as some of Obama's defenders seem to want to lump the latter
> type of criticism as "racist."
>
I'm tempted to say:
Cite?
Who are these people who say this? (A rhetorical question -- I realize
you're not the right person to ask, since you're not siding with that view.)
Obviously there are nut-jobs on every side of every issue, but I do not see
this as a significant part of Obama's strategy. Yeah, Obama says it's
unfair to suggest he supports Hamas, but he doesn't say it's "racist". This
whole fake argument ("waaah, any criticism I make of Obama is called
racist!") is a pure fantasy of Mallard and others like him, who perhaps know
they'd be called racist if they spoke their true thoughts, and so they whine
and wail that they've been somehow unfairly muzzled against uttering
legitimate, substantive criticisms of Obama. To which I say, Oh Bullshit.
Mallard only WISHES that Obama needed to play the "poor little black victim
card". But he doesn't, so Mallard just lies outright and pretends that he
does.
So far, I only know of one situation where reasonable Obama's supporters
have cited racism. And Oh, the humanity! Such a terrible suppression of the
first amendment!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ1cmtpSVww
Detox
> <LNER4...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2767cdd7-ec57-426f...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > It doesn't apply if one says "Obama is inexperienced" or "he
> > has a terrible foreign policy and a worthless economic policy"--
> > inasmuch as some of Obama's defenders seem to want to lump the latter
> > type of criticism as "racist."
>
> I'm tempted to say:
>
> Cite?
>
> Who are these people who say this? (A rhetorical question -- I realize
> you're not the right person to ask, since you're not siding with that view.)
>
> Obviously there are nut-jobs on every side of every issue, but I do not see
> this as a significant part of Obama's strategy. Yeah, Obama says it's
> unfair to suggest he supports Hamas, but he doesn't say it's "racist". This
> whole fake argument ("waaah, any criticism I make of Obama is called
> racist!") is a pure fantasy of Mallard and others like him, who perhaps know
> they'd be called racist if they spoke their true thoughts, and so they whine
> and wail that they've been somehow unfairly muzzled against uttering
> legitimate, substantive criticisms of Obama. To which I say, Oh Bullshit.
>
> Mallard only WISHES that Obama needed to play the "poor little black victim
> card". But he doesn't, so Mallard just lies outright and pretends that he
> does.
>
Ironically, I just sent this home as blog fodder.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/backlash-against-media-smears-in-the-heartland/
Of course, the article doesn't criticize Mr. Obama for playing the
race card. In fact it accurately points out that Mr. Obama and his
campaign of observed a significant lack of racist sentiment in their
efforts which leads him to conclude that we aren't as far apart on
this subject as the race hustlers and their media comrades* would like
us to believe.
The mistake, IMO, is in taking this MF arc to be a criticism of Mr.
Obama when it might be more correctly categorized as a criticism of
the media.
I trust that someone will now point out the strip(s) where Mr. Tinsley
has put the "if you criticize me you are a racist" meme coming out of
Mr. Obama's mouth. It wouldn't surprise me if he did. He makes those
kinds of mistakes from time to time.
Those strips notwithstanding, I think this arc is more about the
media's focus on race than any race consciousness on the part of Mr.
Obama.
*comrades - companions, fellow travellers, brothers in arms.....not
the communist variety**
**sorry if anyone is disappointed by that
Regards,
Dann
racs...@gmail.com
>
> news:2767cdd7-ec57-426f...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > It doesn't apply if one says "Obama is inexperienced" or "he
> > has a terrible foreign policy and a worthless economic policy"--
> > inasmuch as some of Obama's defenders seem to want to lump the latter
> > type of criticism as "racist."
>
> I'm tempted to say:
>
> Cite?
>
> Who are these people who say this? (A rhetorical question -- I realize
> you're not the right person to ask, since you're not siding with that view.)
>
> Obviously there are nut-jobs on every side of every issue, but I do not see
> this as a significant part of Obama's strategy. Yeah, Obama says it's
> unfair to suggest he supports Hamas, but he doesn't say it's "racist". This
> whole fake argument ("waaah, any criticism I make of Obama is called
> racist!") is a pure fantasy of Mallard and others like him, who perhaps know
> they'd be called racist if they spoke their true thoughts, and so they whine
> and wail that they've been somehow unfairly muzzled against uttering
> legitimate, substantive criticisms of Obama. To which I say, Oh Bullshit.
>
Well, Dann's working on a response to my post in which I noted that
20% of Democratic voters in West Virginia said they voted against
Obama because he's black. This was, in his view, an unfair, inaccurate
accusation that stained the entire state of West Virginia, calling
them racist.
I guess if 20% of voters said they were atheists, and I made reference
the poll, it would be proof that I hate religion and was accusing West
Virginia of being a godless hell-hole.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Invid Fan
<478b067f-b23c-4b53...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
<"pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org"> wrote:
> I guess if 20% of voters said they were atheists, and I made reference
> the poll, it would be proof that I hate religion and was accusing West
> Virginia of being a godless hell-hole.
>
Where as if you said 80% of voters there said they were religious,
you'd obviously be saying they were Christian kooks :)
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
Jym Dyer
> context other than this was the worst example of it.
=v= Context was in a previous (though recent) thread, Subject:
being "DS 5/10/08 Saturday". He didn't say it was the worst
example.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> platform...or of Mr. Obama...is generally in for at least
> a few cross words from his campaign and/or his defenders
> tossed their way.
=v= And how is this different from any other campaign?
> No response to the charge.
=v= Manifestly untrue.
> ... then it seems to prove the point, no??
=v= No, indeed.
<_Jym_>
Mike Beede
<a12c1e3e-a0b4-4e99...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Detox <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I trust that someone will now point out the strip(s) where Mr. Tinsley
> has put the "if you criticize me you are a racist" meme coming out of
> Mr. Obama's mouth. It wouldn't surprise me if he did. He makes those
> kinds of mistakes from time to time.
Only one clear-cut example I see, and two others that seem to
imply it was direct (I didn't include them since they're
questionable):
<http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080403&name=Mallard_Fillmore>
Mike Beede
Dann
news:beede-328BAA....@news.visi.com.
My trust has been validated.....sadly. Unfortunately, I am not
surprised.
Dann
news:cffab078-6c2a-4666...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com.
> On May 14, 7:46 am, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 13 May 2008, Antonio E. Gonzalez said the following
>> innews:meek2419vknv
>>
>> > No, actually; whether it's Rev. Wright, or the lapel pin thing,
>> > or
>> > saluting the Pledge of Allegiance, the "big" arguments really do
>> > have no merit as serious issues, and really do fall into the
>> > distraction category; if you can come up with genuine examples of
>> > serious charges that have been dismissed similarly, go ahead and
>> > show 'em . . .
>>
>> Not worth the time.
>>
>> Although I will offer that while the above issues are not definitive,
>> they do help create an impression of Mr. Obama, his thoughts, and his
>> priorities. It does matter to some folks that they are electing
>> someone
>
>> that feels the same way they do about their country. And the Rev.
>> Wright affair does show a lack of judgement, IMO.
>
<snip>
> One of the speculative fiction/fantasy/dystopia novels -- I forget
> which -- had a president who was genial and wore flannel shirts and
> had the booboisie completely in his pocket. It was written long before
> the Reagan years, and it wasn't a slam on Reagan -- it was a
> commentary on the fact that people want to be comfortable, they like
> symbols, they don't want to think too hard.
That isn't because they lack the ability to think deeply on any given
subject. It's because our national government shouldn't be so powerful
as to require that much effort.
> The idea that you can get elected by making true statements about
> important issues is like thinking you can write an intelligent 30-
> minute comedy with solid writing and good acting and beat the dumb,
> predictable show on the other channel that has bad acting and jokes
> about poop. Just look at the ratings, look at the shows that survive,
> tell me on what planet you think your theory will play out?
Oh I don't know...Mr. Clinton was a bit of a policy wonk and he did OK at
the ballot box.
>>
>> Add to them the serial instances where he has claimed that
>> questionaires were incorrectly completed by staffers.
>
> Only vaguely an issue. Excuse me -- only vaguely true. An issue
> because ... see above.
>
> http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gunning_for_obama.html
Although they try _real_ hard not to be, that site does have a bias and
it does show through from time to time. As it does in this case where
they give Mr. Obama a pretty wide benefit of the doubt.
>>Add to that his anti-trade
>> rhetoric issued for domestic consumption that is later recanted to
>> our trade allies in private by campaign aides.
>
> Are you talking about that thing with the Canadians? That was
> recanted, rejected, rebutted. It turned out to be horseshit.
>
> But, yes, see above.
I did. And again they give Mr. Obama a pretty wide leeway by accepting
the claim that Mr. Goolsby [sp?] is an advisor to Mr. Obama, but not an
official part of the campaign. And by accepting Mr. Goolsby's word over
that of the Canadian officials.
That horseshit you smell ain't comin' from the allegations.
>>
>> He's starting to make Mrs. Clinton look politically attractive...and
>> that's saying something!!
>
> Now, now, let's not be silly.
Hey now....I said politically attractive.
>>
>> OTOH, he is right about the gas tax "holiday" being a
>> counterproductive gimmick.
>
> Which was acknowledged everywhere but West Virginia, where they like
> the Clinton/McCain plan.
>
> And where they think Obama is a Muslim.
>
> And a fifth of them voted for Clinton because she's not black.
>
> If they had enough electoral votes to blow their nose, I'd worry about
> this.
What a bunch of prop wash.
Exit polling shows that one in six* WV voters said race was a
factor...not the deciding issue. While I'm sure we both would rather
live in a world where race didn't even rate being a "factor", here in the
real world it still is.
It is less of a factor for someone like Colin Powell. It is more of a
factor for an unknown candidate without any major accomplishments on the
national stage.
And since I don't hear a chorus of condemnations of those voters that are
voting for Mr. Obama _because_ he is black, I'm not sure it is just or
proper to be dismissive of those voters for whom race is a _factor_
Dann
news:uvcm249qc18vq9480...@4ax.com.
> Seriously?! The link-cut *again*??!! Oh, this is almost too much
> fun!:
>
> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/6rfu4m>
>
>
> On 14 May 2008 11:46:08 GMT, Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 13 May 2008, Antonio E. Gonzalez said the following in
>>news:meek2419vknv27puc...@4ax.com.
>>
>>> No, actually; whether it's Rev. Wright, or the lapel pin thing,
>>> or saluting the Pledge of Allegiance, the "big" arguments really do
>>> have no merit as serious issues, and really do fall into the
>>> distraction category; if you can come up with genuine examples of
>>> serious charges that have been dismissed similarly, go ahead and
>>> show 'em . . .
>>
>>Not worth the time.
>>
>
> Translation: "Aww crap, I'm caught lying again!"
>
> Or at least IMO . . . ; )
Naw....we aren't every going to agree on anything other than the time of
day....and I'm still going to want to see where your's has been checked
with time.gov or some other accurate source. <grin>
I'm sure you'll agree.
>>Although I will offer that while the above issues are not definitive,
>>they do help create an impression of Mr. Obama, his thoughts, and his
>>priorities. It does matter to some folks that they are electing
>>someone that feels the same way they do about their country.
>
> That being . . .
That for all of her scars & warts, America is a good country as she stands
today. That she is worthy of defense as she stands today. That the things
about our country that are right far outnumber the things that are wrong.
And that she solves many more problems than she causes.
Clintonian pledges of Allegiance to the flag of the country that "could
be" don't wash.
> And the Rev. Wright affair does show a lack of judgement, IMO.
>>
>
> How?
Taking a crass view, if one wants to be President of the US, then one
should appreciate that someone of Rev. Wright's persuasion is going to set
off the alarm bells for most of the rest of the country. At least the
reasonable, less likely to buy into oddball conspiracy theories part of the
country.
Similarly, his relationship with a former, unapologetic terrorist suggests
a lack of discretion and/or discernment.
IMO.
>>Add to them the serial instances where he has claimed that
>>questionaires were incorrectly completed by staffers.
>
>
> ???
Google it. There has been at least one occasion where an old candidate
survey has come back to bite Mr. Obama in the butt. He blamed a "staffer".
If he can't hire reliable help for his campaign, what makes him think he'll
be able to hire good help for the government?
Ok...so "serial instances" was wrong.
> Add to that his anti-trade
>>rhetoric issued for domestic consumption that is later recanted to our
>>trade allies in private by campaign aides.
>>
>
> Turned out to be Rovian Projection by the Hilary campaign; if you
> can prove he actually did this, you're free to cite . . .
Erm....read the link that Mr. Peterson posted. They give Mr. Obama a
wide benefit of the doubt. At the very least, there is nothing "Rovian"
about it.
>>He's starting to make Mrs. Clinton look politically attractive...and
>>that's saying something!!
>>
>
> Sounds like someone's bitter!
And "clingy"....don't forget "clingy"!!
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Sorry, but turning a blind eye to problems won't make them go away
. . .
>Clintonian pledges of Allegiance to the flag of the country that "could
>be" don't wash.
>
If it "could be" better, then there's nowhere to go but better!
>> And the Rev. Wright affair does show a lack of judgement, IMO.
>>>
>>
>> How?
>
>Taking a crass view, if one wants to be President of the US, then one
>should appreciate that someone of Rev. Wright's persuasion is going to set
>off the alarm bells for most of the rest of the country. At least the
>reasonable, less likely to buy into oddball conspiracy theories part of the
>country.
>
Sorry, distractions don't count, or shouldn't . . .:
<http://www.comics.com/wash/candorville/archive/candorville-20080525.html>
>Similarly, his relationship with a former, unapologetic terrorist suggests
>a lack of discretion and/or discernment.
>
Well, if he did have a relationship with such a person that would
be a problem; since you can't give names . . .
Now I've heard of some morons mention some Ayers dude, who it turns
out was not a terrorist (aquited, hence nothing to apologize for), and
he had no relationship with (livng in the same neighborhood and
serving in a comittee don't count), so . . .
>IMO.
>
>>>Add to them the serial instances where he has claimed that
>>>questionaires were incorrectly completed by staffers.
>>
>>
>> ???
>
>Google it. There has been at least one occasion where an old candidate
>survey has come back to bite Mr. Obama in the butt. He blamed a "staffer".
>
>If he can't hire reliable help for his campaign, what makes him think he'll
>be able to hire good help for the government?
>
>Ok...so "serial instances" was wrong.
>
>> Add to that his anti-trade
>>>rhetoric issued for domestic consumption that is later recanted to our
>>>trade allies in private by campaign aides.
>>>
>>
>> Turned out to be Rovian Projection by the Hilary campaign; if you
>> can prove he actually did this, you're free to cite . . .
>
>Erm....read the link that Mr. Peterson posted. They give Mr. Obama a
>wide benefit of the doubt. At the very least, there is nothing "Rovian"
>about it.
>
Nope, the link was about his "questionaire trouble" (1996?! State
Senate??!! For real???!!!) and second ammendment stance; maybe you
were thinking of some other link . . .
Anyway, looks like my point stands . . .
>>>He's starting to make Mrs. Clinton look politically attractive...and
>>>that's saying something!!
>>>
>>
>> Sounds like someone's bitter!
>
>And "clingy"....don't forget "clingy"!!
--
- ReFlex76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
Dann
news:8efs34ltprhr98ubr...@4ax.com.
> Sorry, but turning a blind eye to problems won't make them go away
> . . .
Given your responses to the rest of my post, this was a gut buster!
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On 29 May 2008, Antonio E. Gonzalez said the following in
>news:8efs34ltprhr98ubr...@4ax.com.
>
>> Sorry, but turning a blind eye to problems won't make them go away
>> . . .
>
>Given your responses to the rest of my post, this was a gut buster!
Which must be your way of admitting I nailed the rest of the post .
. .
Dann
No.
I'm trying to point out that there are legitimate issues....or
problems...with respect to Mr. Obama and that it is pretty ironic that
someone that thinks turning a blind eye to problems is a bad idea can so
blithely dismiss those issues surrounding Mr. Obama.
For the record, I'm not so wild about Mr. McCain either for similar
reasons.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On 29 May 2008, Antonio E. Gonzalez said the following in
>news:8sqt34tkimuvk7i2t...@4ax.com.
>
>> On 29 May 2008 11:01:45 GMT, Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 29 May 2008, Antonio E. Gonzalez said the following in
>>>news:8efs34ltprhr98ubr...@4ax.com.
>>>
>>>> Sorry, but turning a blind eye to problems won't make them go away
>>>> . . .
>>>
>>>Given your responses to the rest of my post, this was a gut buster!
>>
>> Which must be your way of admitting I nailed the rest of the post .
>> . .
>
>No.
>
>I'm trying to point out that there are legitimate issues....or
>problems...with respect to Mr. Obama and that it is pretty ironic that
>someone that thinks turning a blind eye to problems is a bad idea can so
>blithely dismiss those issues surrounding Mr. Obama.
>
Blithely dismiss? I was actually rather thorough .. .:
<http://www.comics.com/wash/candorville/archive/candorville-20080525.html>
>For the record, I'm not so wild about Mr. McCain either for similar
>reasons.
Not really the point, but whatever . . .