Ok so the New York Times supposedly has uncovered a plot to run a ten million dollar negative ad campaign in which an articulate, and as yet unidentified black man will call Barack Obama a "metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln".
...I think the PAC ad would have said (it will not be developed or run) that Obama was NOT the metrosexual black Abe Lincoln that he has been portrayed to be.
...And to answer the OP's question, "metrosexual" means stylish, urban, hip...strictly speaking the word has nothing to do with one's sexual orientation, although the gay male stereotype does include a lot of urbanity and style...
I'd rather have "not-quite-Abe" than the total opposite of Abe.
Lincoln helped people, even let the defeated Confederates up easy. In his youth he was a wrestler who fought men his own size; he didn't need to pick on defenseless younger boys to prove his manhood. He didn't have a rich, politically-connected daddy to pave the way for him, and he didn't destroy others' lives in pursuit of more money than he could ever spend.
I think that ad campaign sounds really stupid. I don't get why that millionaire, Rickett or a name like that (sorry, I'll look it up if you like) wants to rehash the old Jeremiah Wright business, too. Talk about pointless. There are real issues, and that was talked about a little bit in 2008. I can't believe anybody really cares. It's along the same line as the dumb pamphlet from a literary agent that said he was born in Kenya. This just makes us look dumb.
I think it's wise for the Republicans NOT to run the ad. That's got to be the most convoluted, confusing idea for a negative campaign ad ever! Elly's right -- running that ad would only make them look stupid.
Elly, I have read that Ricketts (I'm not sure about the spelling of his name either) has claimed that he is not connected to the campaign. Someone put his name on it, but he says he is not involved.
I must admit I'm a bit confused as to the purpose of such an ad. It doesn't seem as though it would reach anyone relevant. Those who oppose Obama don't need to be persuaded, and those who support him would see it as a positive thing (the metrosexual Abe Lincoln comparison, not the connection to Wright).
I also read the Romney has denounced the tactic. I think he and President Obama BOTH need to focus on policy and the future, not random things from the past. Some of those things may be important in the sense that they say something about the candidate's character, but they are not especially useful for judging his fitness for office at this point in time.
Some... things [from a candidate's past] may be important in the sense that they say something about [his] character, but they are not especially useful for judging his fitness for office...
True for Obama. He has been president for years; it's silly at this late date to search his past for clues as to how he will lead the nation.
Romney, on the other hand, is a former corporate raider, with no federal exper-ience, who acts and talks much like G.W. Bush. Bush's past contained a LOT of indications that he was mean and stupid. He couldn't have gotten a job as, say, a truck driver or police officer; he sure had no business being president. We would be well advised to carefully consider Romney's background to avoid a similar mistake.
Romney, on the other hand, is a former corporate raider, with no federal experience, who acts and talks much like G.W. Bush. Bush's past contained a LOT of indications that he was mean and stupid. He couldn't have gotten a job as, say, a truck driver or police officer; he sure had no business being president. We would be well advised to carefully consider Romney's background to avoid a similar mistake.
A few points and a question:
Interesting that the left will criticize Romney's lack of federal experience, but wasn't concerned with Obama's lack of any executive experience- which Romney certainly has on his resume. In fact, Obama hardly had any federal experience when he began his run for the White House. No sooner had he been elected to the Senate, he started running for the presidency.
It's definitely your personal opinion that Bush and Romney act and talk alike. I don't see it. IMO Bush came across as having a lot more confidence in himself than Romney shows. Bush sounds like a Texan and Romney doesn't. I've posted on this board before that I met GW during his tenure as Texas governor. He spoke in my community on education. I didn't agree with one thing he said, but in the short private conversation I had with him afterwards, I found him to be very polite, warm, and attentive to what I had to say. He made a positive impression on me.
My question- I would appreciate your sharing what those "a lot of indications that he was mean and stupid" are specifically. What are your sources on this? I do know that he had his mouth washed out with soap when he used a racial slur that was overheard by his mom. His mother and father are good people and were strict parents. As for stupid, I guess that's shown by his Harvard degree and the MBA he earned.
You're right, Bush couldn't have gotten hired as a truck driver or police officer- he was over qualified for those jobs!
I think people should be concerned about avoiding a similar mistake about re-electing our current flash-in-the-pan-yes we can president. I'm no Romney fan but 4 more years with Obama (and Biden- yuck) concern me.
The argument that we should not examine Obama's background is silly. Not just his background, but how his background is reflected in the actions he has taken in the last three years. Or the actions he might take in the future if he is re-elected president. Core beliefs are important.
Why is it that the same people who can't go a day without a "Romney is a scary Mormon" story think that Obama's 20 year presence in a white-hating, success-hating, America-hating preacher is off-limits?
To Ellyteacher: Why is Obama's biography, which states that he was born in Kenya, important? Because it shows that Obama allowed a lie to be perpetrated about him for 16 years. From 1991 to 2007, he knowingly allowed himself to be portrayed as Kenyan-born. It only got corrected two months into Obama's run for president. Why? Do exotic birth places tend to sell books better? When else did he allow that lie to persist? When he collected college scholarships? Is that why his transcripts haven't been released?
It makes what he allegedly said to Reverend Wright interesting:
Quote:
“the trouble with you, Reverend, is that you have to tell the truth. And the Reverend Wright says to him, 'That’s not bad trouble to have, Mr. Obama.'”
It makes what he clearly did say to Medvedev really important:
Quote:
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
In other words, I can do things after the election that I don't dare do before the election, because the American people would vote me out of office if I did. That's scary.
So, knowing that Obama is willing to lie, and let others lie for him is important information. The bio goes to show that with Obama, he will say anything to sell something.
The ad campaign was suppose to focus on Rev. Wright because as you can see in this thread, some people don't know a dead horse when they see one. The whole Wright issue and Kenya lie are just that - dead horses they want to continue to beat. What it really means is, we don't want people to realize the economy is doing better, Bin Ladin and many other terrorista are dead, and the wars are more under control so look at this wonderful dead horse we have over here! Don't pay attention to the fact thy the unemployment rate has gone down in 48 states in the last 12 months because ya know, the scary black man was born in Kenya! Romney doesn't know if he would have passed equal pay for women, but hey did you know Obama's Rev. said some crazy stuff? They don't want people to pay attention to his record on the economy and national security because the facts do not support their rhetoric.
PE, do you think Bush would have dismantled the Bin Ladin unit of the CIA before the 2004 election? I think not. Do you think he would have extended the patriot act and as has been reported said "don't throw the constitution in my face, it's just a ######n piece of paper" right before the election? Nope. He waited until 2005 to do those things. His approval rating was at an all time low in 2005 for some of these reasons. No President makes big moves in an election year, even if they are the right ones. All presidents have "more flexibility" in a second term. If Bush was running for President in 2008, I highly doubt he would have been begging for the bank and auto bailouts. He could go against his own party because he had nothing to lose.
Romney and Bush do not act or talk alike. I do not like the "mean and stupid" slander either, but I suppose when people's perspective on the issue don't favor you and a bunch of your states are tossups... This is something that I decry every time I see it on a message board. Issues are often ignored in favor of loaded generalizations like "Republicans are crazy and stupid" or "I don't see HOW you can a human and be a Republican." Obviously, I changed it a little but made the point.
Lest we forget, Obama had two parents with advanced degrees and a grandmother who worked in the banking industry. Let's not revise history and make it seem like he was Joe Schmo who worked by the sweat of his brow. Please. That's as absurd as Michelle Obama telling the little people not to go into moneyed, corporate jobs but stay in the helping professions.
PrivateEyes, the Wright connection has already been discussed. It was meaningful back when Hannity and then others talked about it in 2008. Now it is less relevant because there are newer issues. If people are going to talk about Obama and his connections, why not discuss pathetic cabinet appointments and the 'czars' if anybody, not Wright? With the cabinet appointees and the czars, it goes back to issues. Rightly or wrongly, talking about Wright brings up the "you're racist" meme. Also, PrivateEyes, I am no Obama fan, voted for McCain in 2008 and will vote for Romney in 2012.
Some people may think you post lots of bizarre things hoping the smear intended will have a cumulative effect but no reasonable person can disagree with you when you claim that G W Bush, who was a jet pilot, couldn't get a job as a truck driver.
Apparently the first birther was Obama. He was the one letting everyone believe he was born in Kenya for years (until it became more inconvenient than convenient.) Doesn't that make him a liar?
He's obviously an opportunist. I look forward to the recent books on Obama by Maraniss and Klein. That could be considered a partial vetting, certainly more so than the Obama autobiographies. The Obamas by Jodi Kantor was a pretty good read.
Are you implying that only people of very low intellect get jobs as truck drivers, and therefore Bush is beyond low?
No, PE, I'm not implying any such thing. As I have mentioned occasionally on this board, I was a long-haul trucker from 1990-2001. It was an adventure. Most truckers are not formally educated, but they are very street-smart (no pun intended), and I was proud to be one of them.
My point was that, at least prior to the recession, it was not too hard to become a truck driver. Someone like Bush, who would be disqualified from that job for moral turpitude (see my post #19), was sure to disgrace our country as president, which is exactly what he did.
It's definitely your personal opinion that Bush and Romney act and talk alike. I don't see it.
You're right. Their personal mannerisms are very different. I meant to say they seem to sound alike on the issues; Romney seems if anything to be even farther to the right. Bush at least tried to pretend he was a "compassionate conservative;" not Romney.
Quote:
I would appreciate your sharing what those "[many] indications that [G. W. Bush] was mean and stupid" are, specifically.
Here's just what I remember from my pre-election reading. First, a long article in Vanity Fair quoted some of Bush's college classmates as saying that he'd been a party animal with no interest in books or ideas. Second, a book by the late, great Molly Ivins and a co-author, entitled "Shrub," went into more detail. Ivins, you may recall, was the one who said that Bush was born on third base, and thought he hit a triple. Or was that Ann Richards? ;-)
Many of our presidents and presidential candidates have been lawyers. Bush, by contrast, was rejected by the UT law school. Not surprising; people who don't read usually don't do well on the LSAT. He sound like presidential material to you?
And it was obvious even before Bush disgraced our military and our country by becoming the torturer-in-chief, that he had a mean streak the size of Texas.
Remember Karla Faye Tucker? The young Houston woman who, with her boyfriend, committed a drug-fueled double murder? While sentenced to death she was leading a prison ministry, at which, judging by what I saw of her on TV, she could have helped a lot of women avoid the mistakes she made after her mother turned her out as a prostitute at 14. But no. Not only did Bush execute her, he mocked on TV what she told Larry King she would say to Bush to ask for her life. That Dubya, what a card.
During Bush's first term there was a book by an eminent D.C. psychiatrist, entitled Bush on the Couch. Bush had never been the doctor's patient, of course, but from the public record the doctor knew more about him than he would about any actual patient, and concluded that Bush was both paranoid and sadistic.
Quote:
You're right, Bush couldn't have gotten hired as a truck driver or police officer - he was overqualified for those jobs!
Please see my post #22.
Quote:
I think people should be concerned about...re-electing our current flash-in-the-pan-yes-we-can president.
Pauk Krugman recently wrote in his NYT blog that he used to think Romney was a smart but uncaring guy, based on his record at Bain Capital. But based on Romney's latest statements about economics, Krugman now thinks Romney is a "dangerous fool." Just who we need to lead us through these tough economic times.
Last edited by Ball Three; 05-19-2012 at 04:05 PM..
The quick research I did says you can get a CDL with a DUI and can even get your CDL restored after a DUI. Maybe a guy who knows the size of Lincoln's wrestling opponents has more info than the rest of the us. Remember the old Kenyan muslim trick of making a bold but inaccurate headline and then moving on to the next baseless charge when folks question you.
Yes, Bush might have been able to get a CDL after a DUI. But that's not the point. As I said, getting a truck-driving JOB after a DUI would have been difficult or impossible.
Inquiring minds eagerly await your presentation of new historical evidence that Lincoln's wrestling opponents were NOT his size! And please show your proof that Lincoln ever ambushed a smaller opponent with the help of a half-dozen of his buddies! It would be SUCH a help to your fellow Romney apologists if they could show that Lincoln, too, was a bullying coward!
Last edited by Ball Three; 05-19-2012 at 02:23 PM..
What you said (and you continually say) is " I hate Bush, I hate Cheney, I hate Romney, I hate all republicans, and on and on". You're entitled to hate anybody you want for any reason you might have. What I constantly have to call you on is your never-ending attempts to sneak untruths into your rants. People who don't know your history or who don't read carefully could ingest a lot of disinformation from your posts, which must be what you want.
Part of what we are doing on this board is exchanging information about serious topics. That requires a level of intellectual honesty which some partisans just refuse to accept. If I were a Romney supporter, I would tell you that and give you the reasons why I supported him. Your implying that I'm only challenging your statements because I support Romney doesn't make your statements any more accurate, including your charge that I'm a Romney apologist.
history of drug abuse that would have barred him from employment as a trucker.
Speaking of drug abuse... the guy currently occupying the White House admitted to using cocaine in his past so I guess that bars him from employment as a truck driver too. Maybe even from being presidential material too, right?
Quote:
Many of our presidents and presidential candidates have been lawyers. Bush, by contrast, was rejected by the UT law school. Not surprising; people who don't read usually don't do well on the LSAT.
UT Law is very difficult to get in to. I do doubt Bush had the GPA for acceptance if reports that he was a C+ student are accurate but unless you have knowledge as to his LSAT score, your comment about that is pure speculation.
Quote:
During Bush's first term there was a book by an eminent D.C. psychiatrist, entitled Bush on the Couch. Bush had never been the doctor's patient, of course, but from the public record the doctor knew more about him than he would about any actual patient, and concluded that Bush was both paranoid and sadistic.
I've never read that book so I can't give an opinion on the book or what he has actually said, but I do know that Justin Frank is very liberal- a Berkeley grad- and an Obama supporter. That said, he also wrote Obama on the Couch- describing Obama's unexpressed rage towards his parents and his self-destructiveness. Like with the Bush book, he wrote it without any contact with the person. But thanks for letting me know about the book. I'll make a note of both books (balance), although my summer reading pile is already very full.
history of drug abuse that would have barred him from employment as a trucker.
Quoting half a sentence is okay UNLESS it is done deliberately to change the meaning. In this case you conveniently omitted my reference to Bush's DUI CONVICTION, which is obviously more damaging to one's employability than use of recreational drugs in ways that didn't put the motoring public in harm's way.
You're right; I was guessing about whether it was Bush's mediocre GPA, a lousy LSAT score, or both, that caused him to be rejected at UT Law. So sue me. (Sue me...law school...get it? I kill myself sometimes! LOL)
I'll try to track down Obama on the Couch. Frank is probably already licking his chops at the prospect of getting to write "Romney on the Couch"; no shortage of material there, what with the dog abuse, the bullying, how he likes being able to fire people...
Quoting half a sentence is okay UNLESS it is done deliberately to change the meaning. In this case you conveniently omitted my reference to Bush's DUI CONVICTION, which is obviously more damaging to one's employability than use of recreational drugs in ways that didn't put the motoring public in harm's way.
My reason for not including that particular section of your sentence was not as you have assumed. Between your initial comment and my responding post, you and T2R10 had a discussion about being able to get a CDL even after a DUI. It no longer seemed to be a point re:employment that needed to be included.
As for drugs, I consider marijuana to fall into the recreational drug category but not cocaine, which is very hard core crap. IMO anyone who has even tried that drug needs to have their head examined.
Speaking of drug abuse...the guy currently occupying the White House admitted to using cocaine in his past so I guess that bars him from employment as a truck driver too. Maybe even from being presidential material too, right?
A google search indicates that, while Obama has admitted to trying some cocaine in high school, Bush was HEAVILY into cocaine and alcohol FOR MANY YEARS AS AN ADULT. Can you say, "No comparison"?
I used the phrase "recreational drugs" to distinguish them from prescribed drugs, not to imply that any of them were harmless. Cocaine (which I have never tried) does indeed appear to be very addictive and therefore destructive, not least because of its expense.
But I have on several occasions taken doctor-prescribed opiates as painkillers after surgery. Sometimes very mood-elevating (it's called "heroin" because it makes you feel like a hero), but they don't screw up your coordination and judgment like alcohol, which is the MOST dangerous drug of all. Ask any cop.
Last edited by Ball Three; 05-20-2012 at 11:37 AM..
In this case you conveniently omitted my reference to Bush's DUI CONVICTION, which is obviously more damaging to one's employability than use of recreational drugs in ways that didn't put the motoring public in harm's way.
It's not like Obama wrote in Dreams From My Father about speeding "down a highway with gin clouding my head."
Oh wait...HE DID!
Quote:
while Obama has admitted to trying some cocaine in high school, Bush was HEAVILY into cocaine and alcohol FOR MANY YEARS AS AN ADULT. Can you say, "No comparison"?
Again, in the book, Obama wrote, "I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it."
He also wrote, "I had discovered that it didn't make any difference whether you smoked reefer in the white classmmate's sparkling new van, or in the dorm room of some brother you'd met at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had dropped out of school and now spent most of their time looking for an excuse to brawl."
And "Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed." (Doesn't sound like he just "tried" it if he calls himself "junkie" and "pothead.")
Thank you for the information. As I said, I merely googled Obama's history re booze and drugs; if you have read his books, you obviously have the advantage. If I distrusted your quotes I would ask for page numbers, but I trust the quotes are accurate.
But I still say, "No comparison."
The operative phrase is in your final paragraph: "Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed." (Emphasis supplied.) He might have become a junkie and a pothead, but didn't, and, I gather, was never even close to being a drunk like Bush. And, unlike Bush, he straightened himself out while still a young man.
Of course you do--even though your claim that he didn't put other drivers in harm's way has been proven absolutely false by Obama's own admission that he raced down the highway with gin clouding his head. Your assertion that he merely tried drugs in high school was again proven false by Obama's admission that he used drugs (marijuana and cocaine) for "years" during high school and college.
I am dumbfounded that you would criticize Bush in this area and yet have no idea what Obama has published about his own alcohol and drug abuse. That you "googled" it and didn't find anything seems more proof of the left wing bias of the media. They don't talk about Obama's published account of alcohol and drug abuse? Egad!
...your claim that [Obama] didn't put other drivers in harm's way has been proven absolutely false by Obama's own admission that he raced down the highway with gin clouding his head. Your assertion that he merely tried drugs in high school was again proven false by Obama's admission that he used drugs (marijuana and cocaine) for years during high school and college.
Your attempt to spin Obama's dabbling in drugs and alcohol (like many kids do in HS and college) into something even remotely akin to Bush's HEAVY use of booze and drugs until he was about 40 is pathetic coming from a teacher, but, unfortunately, routine coming from a right-wing ideologue.
when a left-winger starts to lose a debate, because the name-calling immediately appears.
The whole discussion is moot, anyway. Why in the world would we be comparing the smoking, drinking, admitted illegal-drug user Obama to the drinking, alleged illegal drug user Bush?
The choice is between the smoking, drinking, admitted aillegal-drug user Obama and the non-smoking, non-drinking, non-drug using Romney.
It's always obvious when right-wingers have no case, because they resort to spin, evasion, or other forms of obfuscation and then complain of name-calling when the left calls them on it.
The choice is between Romney, who like former-candidate Bush has PLENTY in his distant AND recent past to suggest that he is mean and stupid, and Obama, who is neither.
You know, Obama has plenty in his past that is not exactly exemplary. He smoked pot, did cocaine, and claimed to be born in Kenya, although now claims to be born in Hawaii. He is secretive on his college record. He spent 20 years in a church that is anti-American and had his daughters baptised there. He hung out with Weather Underground Bill Ayers.
So, he's not as clean and spotless as you'd like to believe he is.
The choice is between Obama who has stood up for people and things he believes in or Romney who says whatever is popular at the moment.
Many people on the left don't care that Obama smoked weed or drank in college. The left doesn't run on a religious platform as many "Christian conservative" republicans do. I'm a little shocked that people assume Romney, a teenager in the 60s with daddy's money & name, never did drugs! Just because Obama is man enough to admit it doesn't mean Romney never did it.
By the way, Obama never claimed he was born in Kenya. In 1991, there was a biography written by a literary agency that stated in a brochure he was born in Kenya. Obama didn't write it and it was written to feature a book that Obama never ended up writing! This story, from the ever reliable, Andrew Breitbart is nonsense. Breitbart has a proven past of editing video and pictures so who knows if it's even close to true, regardless if it's real, Obama didn't write it and probably didn't even proof read somehing like that since the book was never written.
I love how the right keeps bringing up the "birther" nonsense, thereby insuring that if they ever DID come up with a real issue, nobody would believe them. Echoing the prevarications of professional liar Andrew Breitbart, who edited the Shirley Sherrod video to make her sound like a racist, destroys any credibility they might have had left.
Obama is "secretive" on his college record? Is that, too, according to Andrew Breitbart? His record apparently is no secret to anyone who has a right to see it, such as the state which admitted him to the bar, or the law school which hired him to teach.
He used to hang out with sinners? Wow. If that's a deal-breaker, nobody including Jesus would qualify for a leadership position.
Last edited by Ball Three; 05-21-2012 at 04:36 PM..
Many people on the left don't care that Obama smoked weed or drank in college.
I do. Members of our military have their careers ruined for trying pot once. These often are young people, barely into adulthood, who make one foolish choice. And they are ruined.
But it's okay for their Commander-in-Chief to have a history of drug use? That's just wrong.
I never have really liked Obama. I didn't vote for him in the primary and probably wouldn't now if there were one. But I cannot vote for a Republican because I am fundamentally opposed to many of their policy decisions.
That is a sad situation.
I really wish there were a true choice. Our two-party system is a detriment to our country. George Washington tried to warn us.
By the way, Obama never claimed he was born in Kenya. In 1991, there was a biography written by a literary agency that stated in a brochure he was born in Kenya. Obama didn't write it and it was written to feature a book that Obama never ended up writing!
That's how it started, but the error persisted for 16 years as documented by archive.org. In April of 2007, the Dystel site had this bio of Obama.
BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long time New York Times bestseller.
In June of 2004, an AP article stated that Obama was "Kenyan-born."
Not a birther, but I do wonder who was (mis)leading these people to believe Obama was born in Kenya--and why. Hmmm....
Many people on the left don't care that Obama smoked weed or drank in college. The left doesn't run on a religious platform as many "Christian conservative" republicans do.
Your first sentence is very sad. Your second sentence may have been able to stand alone, but combined with the first, it sounds as if Republicans have moral ground that they stand on and sometimes fail while Democrats don't have to worry about that because they never claimed to have morals at all. I'm not saying it's true, but you might want to be careful how you argue for your side.
Quote:
I'm a little shocked that people assume Romney, a teenager in the 60s with daddy's money & name, never did drugs! Just because Obama is man enough to admit it doesn't mean Romney never did it.
Man enough to admit it? It seems like Obama can do no wrong in your eyes. Maybe I've missed something, but has it been discovered that Romney used drugs in the past? If not, it's not necessary to try to lessen the faults of one by casting doubts on the integrity of another. If you want to do so, maybe you should do it based on something other than speculation.
I don't understand why it's sad to say people don't care if he smoked marijuana in college? There are a lot of people who think marijuana should be made legal. Do you realize what a big business it is? It's a pretty popular drug that many people have tried and feel should be legalized and taxed. Even people that don't use it still don't necessarily think its any worse than alcohol.
Never did I say democrats don't have morals, they just don't exploit them as a reason to get votes. Liberals don't claim their believes are supported by God and a religious belief as many republicans do, example abortion. Many republicans like to think they are superior to those liberals that believe in the right for a woman to choose what happens to her body. There is just no equivilant to the Christian conservative movement on the left.
Maybe I've just been around too many teenagers with too much money and no responsibility. I was too busy working to attend parties in high school, but I'm not foolish enough not to know they existed, especially when rich and powerful parents went away which was often. I'm not willing to assume Romney never drank in high school or college or didn't try a drug as many did in the 60s. He might have - again, who cares? Steve Jobs admitted to using drugs in his twenties - he turned out pretty well. It's just one of those straw man arguments that get brought up to try to make him look bad because republicans don't want to talk about Obama's record. Many people have tried a drug or drank a beer before the age of 21, it doesn't make them bad people.
(Quoting Obama bio) Barack Obama is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya...(end quote)
In June of 2004, An AP article stated that Obama was "Kenyan-born."
Not a birther, but I do wonder who was (mis)leading these people to believe Obama was born in Kenya--and why. Hmm...
Have you EVER seen a newspaper story that was accurate in EVERY DETAIL? Didn't think so. There's your answer.
But just for fun, let's say some person or persons DID deliberately mislead the press. Let's see...who would want to make it harder for a charismatic, up-and-coming young star of the Democratic Party to ever become president? Think really hard.... LOL
Last edited by Ball Three; 05-21-2012 at 11:33 PM..
Members of our military have their careers ruined for trying pot once. These often are young people, barely into adulthood, who make one foolish choice. And they are ruined.
But it's okay for their Commander-in-Chief to have a history of drug use? That's just wrong.
So Obama's career should be ruined, too, for making similar choices as a young man? How would that help the kids in the military?
Booze is accepted and even celebrated in the military (read or watch the opening scene of The Great Santini). But other drugs are out. I agree, it ain't fair. The military is a tough place, that can kill and hurt you in a lot of ways besides combat. But that's not really Obama's fault.
Last edited by Ball Three; 05-21-2012 at 11:31 PM..
You might want to think twice before you equate religiosity with morality.
I was too young to fight in WWII, but I served with a lot of Marines who did. They had very little use for religion; evangelical Christians were almost non-existent.
Eleanor Roosevelt, the first lady, publicly said of them during the war,
Quote:
They have the lowest morals and the highest morale, the cleanest bodies and dirtiest minds...Thank God for the U.S. Marines!
Today's military people are brave, but these guys, with the odds against them, were heroic. They ate captured Japanese rations to stay alive on Guadalcanal. In the Philippines they were trapped after Pearl Harbor, and fought until they ran out of ammunition. I knew a captain who had survived the Bataan Death March.
They fought, and some of them died, for you. And as the bible says, "Greater love hath no man..."
So once again, religiosity ain't morality. And vice versa.
Last edited by Ball Three; 05-22-2012 at 08:50 AM..
...it's not necessary to try to lessen the faults of one by casting doubts on the integrity of anther. If you want to do so, maybe you should do it based on something other than speculation.
No speculation from the left allowed. Got it.
...and here's the end of your post to Stretchberry, who said he was "wondering" about how and why the story about Obama's "Kenyan" birth got started...
Quote:
Hey, Stretchberry, could you answer the "and why" part of your post? I'm interested to hear what you think.
On the other hand, speculation from the right is not only allowed, but actively encouraged! Woo hoo!
Last edited by Ball Three; 05-22-2012 at 11:21 AM..
The simplist explanation is most likely the correct explanation.
In 1991, some publisher wrote a biography of Barack Obama. The biography erroneously states that he was born in Kenya. Where did the publisher get the info for the biography? It does not seem likely that the publisher made that up,does it?
That biography existed, both in published form, and later, on a website, for 16 years. It does not seem likely that Barack Obama was unaware of the error for the entire time, does it?
That error was changed 2 months into the Obama presidential campaign. Suddenly, Obama is aware of the mistake and only then, when it would disqualify his presidential aspirations, does he ask for a correction.
In 2004, the very liberal AP notes that then senatorial candidate Obama was born in Kenya. There is no evidence that Obama asked for a correction, and none was ever published. BallThree would have us believe that A) the AP is is a right-wing organzation that B) was at that time predicting an Obama presidential bid, and C) set out to create the birther movement. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
The most likely explanation is that the ever inventive Obama believed that a Kenyan birthplace would make his prospective book more interesting. The next most likely explanation is that Obama's college colleagues knew him as Kenyan-born, and he had to continue the lie.
What is NOT likely is that Obama told them he was born in Hawaii, and they "made a mistake" that Obama was never asked to fact-check. It is also not likely that they made up a biography without consulting Obama. He let a lie exist for 16 years, for reasons unknown. What else is he lying about?
Thank you for contributing another bucket of red herring to the right-wing's fish market. Those may be getting a little ripe, but apparently, as I pointed out above,
Quote:
...speculation from the right is not only allowed, but actively encouraged! Woo hoo!
By the way, were those herring caught by Swift Boats?? Just wonderin'...
Last edited by Ball Three; 05-23-2012 at 10:54 AM..
see post #51 for alternative ways to "add" to the discussion, ie
A. Label the argument as illegitimate. (a form of name-calling) No counter argument is available, so pretend it isn't necessary.
B. Attempt to hold one's debating opponent to standards she has never espoused.
C. Attempt to change the subject.
And stop pretending you don't know the difference between speculating on a cause to a very provable event, and claiming an event may have occurred (with no evidence to support it, other than wishful thinking.)
The brochure that this biography appeared in was distributed to industry insiders, not something Obama, or the public, would have seen at the time. It was used to promote the agency, they all do it, especially before the Internet became mainstream. To say Obama "knowingly" allowed the lie to be published makes you quite the mind reader PE! One of the thousands of people that worked on Obama's campaign found it - good for them! I highly doubt any author or politican is aware of everything that is published about them. Perhaps the publisher thought selling Obama as Kenyan born for a book that was supposed to be titled "Living in Black and White" would give him more credibility, or make him more interesting, and maybe it really was just a clerical error as the publisher claims. Either way, there's certainly no evidence to say Obama even knew about the biography and there is evidence to prove he didn't write it.
He's given every document he can to prove he was born in Hawaii, but let's keep beating that dead horse because it's one of the few straw man arguments republicans can still hold on to! They can't say he's black, because that's racist, so they'll continue to claim he's a foreigner! Anything to make him scary.
Nobody here on PT in this thread has claimed Obama was actually born in Kenya. Actually, I think he LIED. Blame it on the publisher all you want, but the "born in Kenya" wasn't pulled out of thin air. That it was totally unknown to Obama for 16 years defies belief.
Oh yes, I love the "I'm not a birther....but here are websites and stories that I will repeatedly post about" argument. The only thing I can say is common sense, if people on this board didn't believe it, they wouldn't take the time and effort continue to post about it. it's actually funny that when I searched this topic, there was an article about how the media, INCLUDING Fox, will not touch this story. They either realize Breibart has no credibility or that it's a dead horse and mainstream America does not believe it.
Obama did not write the biography. It wasn't common practice for authors to write their own biographies at that time, it is now. If Obama didn't write it, how did HE lie? Is he just responsible for everyone else's actions now? I know he's responsible for what Ayers did decades before Obama meet him as a colleague and everything his pastor has ever said, but he has to be in charge of eveyhing that has ever been written about him too?
Someone wrote misinformation about him. It happens all the time. If he spent his time worrying about it, he'd be a very busy man! He has other important things to worry about, like killing terrorists and creating jobs.
That it was totally unknown to Obama for 16 years defies belief.
Yes.
The length of time a person puts up with something says a lot about his character. Sixteen years!
Quote:
I know he's responsible for what Ayers did decades before Obama meet him as a colleague and everything his pastor has ever said, but he has to be in charge of eveyhing that has ever been written about him too?
His pastor spewed hate for 20 years with Obama's silent approval.
The length of time a person puts up with something says a lot about his character. Twenty years!
You align yourself politically with the party of propaganda and dirty tricks, the party of the Swift Boat campaign and the Watergate burglary and coverup, the party of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, and gay homophobes like the Rev. Ted Haggard.
And you dare to denigrate Obama because you think HE associated with rotten people???
You pretend to see into Obama's heart and read his character, based on his pastor's anger over transgressions he experienced under Jim Crow that you know nothing about and can't begin to understand. Maybe Obama understood and forgave that anger, even though he obviously didn't buy into it.
Does the phrase, "Judge not, lest ye be judged" ring a bell??
The Bushes and Bin Ladins have been in business together for decades. I think that's enough said on associations!
Sadly we don't know who is donating to Romney's campaign, but it has been published that he received a lot of money from people connected to the bribery scandal that happened before he took over the Olympics.
Is Romney responsible for their actions? I'm sure there are people in Romney's life that have said hateful things before, just as I'm sure he has crossed paths with criminals before, according to the article, he offered a million dollar contract to one!
I'm so glad we have two mind readers now that just KNOW Obama read the biography and "put up" with the lie. Please use your awesome powers for good!
BallThree, I saw your message before it got deleted, so I'll respond to it. I was hoping my short answer of "Yes" would be sufficient because I'm tired, and I don't feel like posting.
No, I don't have a double standard.
People have failed numerous times in both parties. I do not agree that the Republican party is "the party of propaganda and dirty tricks" any more so than the Democratic party is.
Quote:
And you dare to denigrate Obama because you think HE associated with rotten people???
Yes, he did.
The first time I mentioned it, which might have been on a different thread, I was pointing out Obama's past in comparison with Romney's past because Romney's past was being blown out of proportion.
Quote:
You pretend to see into Obama's heart and read his character, based on his pastor's anger over transgressions he experienced under Jim Crow that you know nothing about and can't begin to understand. Maybe Obama understood and forgave that anger, even though he obviously didn't buy into it.
Once again, hate is excused.
Quote:
I'm so glad we have two mind readers now that just KNOW Obama read the biography and "put up" with the lie.
Wouldn't he have had to approve the biography and sign off on it? I would like to know why he tolerated this misinformation.
As I've said before, the right's fixation on Bill Ayers and the Rev. Wright is laughable. If Obama had ever DONE anything to show he was under their influence you would be talking about THAT, not about Ayers and Wright.
As I've said before, Democrats criticize Romney for things HE DID, not things SOMEONE ELSE did or said. But hey, since you don't HAVE anything else, I understand...
Of course, if you INSIST on bringing up religious influences, we could talk about Romney's Mormon Church, their plural marriages, the Mountain Meadow Massacre...
Quote:
I do not agree that the Republican party is "the party of propaganda and dirty tricks" any more than the Democratic party is.
I guess you're right, if you don't count Fox News, Watergate, Iran-Contra, the Savings and Loan scandals, Reagan's lies about Cadillac-driving "welfare queens," the Swift Boat lies about John Kerry, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Karl Rove, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Ted Haggard...
Quote:
Wouldn't [Obama] have had to approve the biography and sign off on it?
Since when does an author have to get APPROVAL from a subject before publishing a biography?? Can you say, "First Amendment"??
Quote:
I would like to know why he tolerated that misinformation.
BEAT that dead horse!!! LOL
Last edited by Ball Three; 05-24-2012 at 09:26 AM..
As I've said before, Democrats criticize Romney for things HE DID, not things SOMEONE ELSE did or said. But hey, since you don't HAVE anything else, I understand...
I don't have anything else? There are plenty of other things. You know that because you've been around here the past four years. As someone on another thread said (this is my paraphrase) silence equals approval.
Quote:
BEAT that dead horse!!! LOL
Obviously, you don't like my bringing this up. There are no available answers coming from Obama, so it's easier to say I'm beating a dead horse. I understand.
Quote:
Since when does an author have to get APPROVAL from a subject before publishing a biography?? Can you say, "First Amendment"??
From what I've read, it's a common practice.
Again, all of this shows Obama can get away with anything with relatively little questioning.
You mean like your silence about Romney's animal abuse, bullying, homophobia, support for corporate "personhood," expressed unconcern for the poor, history as a job-destroying corporate raider, and disrespect for women's rights, while you post endlessly about people who have never had any connection with Obama's presidency except in right-wingers' fevered imaginations?
The brochure was published by the agency, to promote the agency. He was the employee, not the employer. No, he doesn't have to approve of their advertising! That's kind of like saying, I'm an employee of Wal-Mart and if they put my birthday in a newsletter, I have to approve it first. It just doesn't work like that. Again, in the early 90s, Internet was not mainstream. The only people who saw this brochure were industry insiders.
Ball3, have you noticed that all the republicans ever post is hateful (and mostly untrue) stuff about Obama? I guess it's really hard to promote an etch-a-sketch because you don't really know where he stands on anything, but people have not been promoting or defending Romney. I actually think it's kind of sad because it seems that people are going to vote solely based on hatred.
PAJess, I, for one, am not going to vote based on hatred! I doubt that any of the other conservatives on this board will, either.
Quote:
Ball3, have you noticed that all the republicans ever post is hateful (and mostly untrue) stuff about Obama?
I'm sorry that's your opinion, but it's not true.
If you really wanted to know BallThree's opinion, why wouldn't you send him a private message? To ask him that for everyone to read makes it seem as if you are trying to stir things up.
Bgracie, I do believe you posed a question to one specific poster in THIS thread! If you really wanted to know Stretberry's opinion, since you were not asking for facts, why didn't YOU send a private message?
The hypocrisy knows no bounds, but it does make for a good laugh!
I do agree with ball3 that there is a lot of silence on anything Romney. Care to address anything that involves Romney or is your purpose really just to hate Obama and make personal comments about posters?
I truly don't understand what anyone sees in Romney. It can't be policy because he's had about every position available on any issue. I don't even see how people relate to a privileged person who is honestly downright rude sometimes. He argues with people in the audience (like when he said corporations are people) and he insulted cookies that were made by a local baker in PA.
There are times I don't agree with Obama, because if you've read the board for awhile, I do not believe he can "do no wrong", as you accused me of earlier. However, I at least feel like I know what I'm getting if I chose to vote for him. I'm looking at his policy decisions and deciding based on real facts, not Breibart and conspiracy theorists that want to use scary words like socialism and death panels. Even the Romney campaign itself seems to be focusing on a fear campaign, not one that promotes Romney. This whole thread was started about a Romney ad that was meant to attack Obama, not promote Romney!
There's no hypocrisy here, PAJess. You've misunderstood what I said. I directly asked stretchberry a question related to a topic that I wanted her to expand on. Your question to BallThree looks like it's meant to talk negatively about other posters. There's a big difference.
Quote:
Care to address anything that involves Romney or is your purpose really just to hate Obama and make personal comments about posters?
I know that you must not be addressing me here because I don't make personal comments about other posters. I make it a point to be civil to people here, as I am in person.
I don't hate Obama. I pray for him whenever I think of it. However, I don't think he's a good President.
I've made the points I've intended to make regardless of whether they meet with your approval.
To avoid any more misunderstandings with you on this thread, I believe I'm done posting.
BGracie, how dare you talk about OBAMA instead of Romney on a thread entitled, "Metrosexual Obama?" And, you asked a question intended to illicit additional information and opinion, rather than as a thinly veiled insult to the Republicans who post on this board. Gosh, you have a lot of nerve to differentiate between the two types of questions. You actually opposed a sitting president, which, of course means you "HATE" that president. It's not possible you have a different opinion on what's best for our country.
Last edited by PrivateEyes; 05-25-2012 at 02:30 AM..
I know that you must not be addressing me here because I don't make personal comments about other posters. I make it a point to be civil to people here, as I am in person.
I think you need to read the thread, specifically post 43, or look at my last post where I quote your ASSUMPTION about the way I, personally, view the President! But of course, you don't do that! I'm glad you are a person but with the way you know Obama "put up wih this lie" and how I view the President, I still hope you use your mind reading powers for good.
Ball3 made an observation that people have been awfully silent on Romney, because you said that silence is agreement. You have helped prove his statement by again not addressing anything Romney, even when asked. I agreed with that observation and included my own to see if he agreed, that's quite acceptable on a message board. No one jumped on you for asking Stretchberry an opinion question, which could have just turned this thread into more conspiracy theories (thereby, "stirring the pot" as you say, the same respect should be returned.
I reread it. Like I already said, I made no personal comments.
Quote:
No one jumped on you for asking Stretchberry an opinion question, which could have just turned this thread into more conspiracy theories (thereby, "stirring the pot" as you say, the same respect should be returned.
I still don't think you understand what I'm saying.
PrivateEyes understood. This is what she said:
Quote:
And, you asked a question intended to illicit additional information and opinion, rather than as a thinly veiled insult to the Republicans who post on this board.
This explains it exactly. The difference is clear.
Quote:
I still hope you use your mind reading powers for good.
I'm the one making personal comments?
I thought I was done with this thread, but I couldn't resist.
As I've said before, Democrats criticize Romney for things HE DID, not things SOMEONE ELSE did or said. But hey, since you don't HAVE anything else, I understand...
Of course, if you INSIST on bringing up religious influences, we could talk about Romney's Mormon Church, their plural marriages, the Mountain Meadow Massacre...
Apples and oranges. As everyone knows, Obama had an ongoing relationship that spanned years with Ayers and decades with Wright. Those are facts. To discuss those relationships and their possible influence on Obama is reasonable.
Romney isn't hanging out with people who practice polygamy. He does not support it. As for the Mountain Meadow Massacre, that goes back to the 19th century and I don't think Romney is old enough to have been part of that group either.
People can see that to equate a discussion based on facts with one that has no basis in fact is totally illogical.
I, for one, am not going to vote based on hatred! I doubt that any of the other conservatives on this board will, either.
Oh my, bGracie, now the left is accusing us conservatives of voting based on hatred! Like you, I don't hate Obama at all. He actually seems like a pretty cool guy, but his experience did not qualify him for the office of president. I also pray for him and for the country. It's sad that some on the left will make comments that are so hateful and untrue about conservative PTers here.
And with how many dozens and hundreds of OTHER people did Obama have a similar degree of association during those years and decades? Talk about cherry-picking!
You're suggesting Obama might be some black radical, so brilliantly disguised that neither his law school classmates, his law firm supervisors, the law school faculty that hired him, nor his opponents in two political campaigns have ever found any evidence of it beyond these two guys. As I said before, if President Obama had ever DONE anything to support these allegations, you would be talking about THAT. Since you are not, your desperation becomes obvious.
Maybe if the right would stop trying to smear Democrats, and supporting a candidate out to destroy our lives by further enriching the 1% at our expense, we wouldn't be so "hateful" to them.
Of course, I realize that's out of the question. The Republican party has always been the party of smear and fear. Back in the 1950s, Sen. Joe McCarthy made a similar appeal to fear, trumpeting lies about how the State Department was full of commu-nists. He was censured by the Senate, and died a pathetic drunk.
Poor guy was just ahead of his time. Now he would be a Tea Party hero.
Since you have seen fit in the past to point out what you erroneously thought was a grammatical error of mine, I will take this opportunity to point out such an error in your post #70:
Quote:
And, you [BGracie] asked a question intended to illicit additional information and opinion...
"Illicit" means illegal. To "elicit" is to draw out a response.
As I've told my kids, reading enables one to distinguish between such similar-sounding words, as well as to learn punctuation and spelling and to enhance one's vocabulary, while enjoying oneself at the same time. :-)
By the way, the response Gracie was attempting to elicit was (of course) speculation about some imaginary dirt on Obama. Gosh, how unfair of those on the left to compare such speculation to an alleged veiled insult to Republicans. LOL
You're suggesting Obama might be some black radical, so brilliantly disguised that neither his law school classmates, his law firm supervisors, the law school faculty that hired him, nor his opponents in two political campaigns have ever found any evidence of it beyond these two guys. As I said before, if President Obama had ever DONE anything to support these allegations, you would be talking about THAT. Since you are not, your desperation becomes obvious.
Actually, you are the one suggesting that. I was merely pointing out that your initial statement was illogical. I really don't pay much mind to Obama's past. It is much more important to look at what decisions he is making as president and what he projects as goals for another 4 years.
Quote:
The Republican party has always been the party of smear and fear. Back in the 1950s, Sen. Joe McCarthy made a similar appeal to fear, trumpeting lies about how the State Department was full of commu-nists. He was censured by the Senate, and died a pathetic drunk.
Speaking of desperation, yours is pretty obvious if you need to bring McCarthy in as representative of today's republican party. I'm sure you know that many republican senators spoke out against McCarthy and his actions. And using your logic- what would it say about the democrats of the time since McCarthy actually had a close relationship and the support of the Kennedy family.
But, hey, if we can go back to McCarthy as a reflection on today's republicans, let's go back to Reconstruction and use the democrats of that time and their enacting Jim Crow laws as representative of today's democrats. Yes, I know, that's as ludicrous as your using McCarthy and your last comment which has no basis in any fact. That's my point. Your comment was just a B3 sound-bite and nothing more than plain bull IMO.
I really don't pay much mind to Obama's past. It is much more important to look at what decisions he is making as president and what he projects as goals for another four years.
For someone who doesn't "pay much mind" to Obama's past, you sure talk about it a lot, and have no problem encouraging others on the right to do the same:
Quote:
As everyone knows, Obama had an ongoing relationship that spanned years with Ayers and decades with Wright. Those are facts. To discuss those relationships and their possible influence on Obama is reasonable.
And what do you say about the "much more important" facts about Obama's presidential record, and the wide disparity between his vision for the next four years and that of Romney?
Quote:
(Crickets chirping)...
Quote:
Speaking of desperation, yours is pretty obvious if you need to bring McCarthy in as a representative of today's Republican party. I'm sure you know that many Republican senators spoke out against McCarthy and his actions. And using your logic - what would it say about the Democrats of the time since McCarthy actually had a close relationship and the support of the Kennedy family?
But hey, if we can go back to McCarthy as a reflection of today's Republicans, let's go back to Reconstruction, and use the Democrats of that time and their enactment of Jim Crow laws as representative of today's Democrats...
Unlike the southern Democrats who supported Jim Crow (and later became Republicans), McCarthy's accusing the federal government of being full of communists and socialists sounds a LOT like his party of today with its Tea Party radicals.
I'm sure that some Republican senators did speak out against McCarthy's witch hunt; there were some decent Republican pols in those days. And it's true that McCarthy and JFK were fellow Irishmen, fellow senators, fellow anti-communists, and friends, until McCarthy disgraced himself with his demagoguery as today's corporate-owned Republican pols and corporate-owned media hacks are doing.
Last edited by Ball Three; 05-26-2012 at 01:08 PM..
For someone who doesn't "pay much mind" to Obama's past, you sure talk about it [a lot], and have no problem encouraging others on the right to do the same:
Once is hardly a lot, BallThree. You really do need to quit your tendency to exaggerate things.
Crickets chirping? Why do you have that as a quote as if it is something I said? You are mistaken, just as you are in your "a lot" comment.
Quote:
And what do you say about the "much more important" facts about Obama's presidential record, and the wide disparity between his vision for the next four years and that of Romney?
Thank you for the invitation to share my thoughts. If I felt a civil discussion could take place, I'd share. But I don't, so I won't. (Except to say, as I have previously, that I am not crazy about Romney).
I'm certainly not exaggerating when I say right-wingers on this board have posted A LOT of innuendo about Obama's birthplace and about Ayers and Wright. That you have mentioned it once on this thread makes me think you have mentioned it before, as others certainly have.
Crickets chirping is, I believe, a common metaphor suggesting that someone is unable to come up with a good answer to a question. In this case, I was pointing out the contrast between your volubility about things to which you claim to pay little attention, and your conspicuous silence on issues you say are important.
You're probably right that a civil discussion on the real issues is not likely, if by "civil" you mean one which entails no criticism of Romney or support of Obama.
For someone who doesn't "pay much mind" to Obama's past, you sure talk about it a lot, ...
Quote:
I'm certainly not exaggerating when I say right-wingers on this board have posted A LOT of innuendo about Obama's birthplace and about Ayers and Wright.
BallThree, if you compare your own words in your two posts, your comment is made directly towards me- not to others here.
Quote:
That you have mentioned it once on this thread makes me think you have mentioned it before, as others certainly have.
You are right, others have. I have not.
Quote:
You're probably right that a civil discussion on the real issues is not likely, if by "civil" you mean one which entails no criticism of Romney or support of Obama.
No, I mean one in which discussion centers on the issues- whether it entails criticism or support of either candidate.
05-17-2012, 11:05 PM
Simple View
