Log in

View Full Version : Could Be '68 All Over Again



Pages : 1 [2]

Melonie
04-27-2008, 11:26 AM
I would argue that the main proponents of the 'business of race', i.e. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson et al, would be relieved if Obama got the ax. As it is, Obama is usurping their limelight, as well as a good portion of their financial support. Reverend Al is out marching in NYC today over a recent court ruling absolving NYC cops in the shooting of an 'innocent black man', and he can't even get the top of the news hour headline @!

bem401
04-27-2008, 12:46 PM
I would argue that the main proponents of the 'business of race', i.e. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson et al, would be relieved if Obama got the ax. As it is, Obama is usurping their limelight, as well as a good portion of their financial support. Reverend Al is out marching in NYC today over a recent court ruling absolving NYC cops in the shooting of an 'innocent black man', and he can't even get the top of the news hour headline @!

Secretly, yes, they would probably be relieved, but they wouldn't allow his candidacy to go away quietly, however insincere they might be in their protestations. And what do they allow to go away quietly in the first place? Today, the good reverend is protesting the shooting of an innocent black man by 3 cops, 2 of whom are themselves black. Last year, Jesse picketed the white guy who sold the gun that one black guy used to kill another black guy. Idiots!

Eric Stoner
04-28-2008, 08:09 AM
The Dem. Super-Delegates are not stup[id and more than anything else they want to win in November. Handing the nomination to Hillary will turn off more people than if Barack wins and many are starting to wise up about the Clintons and what they are really about.

It will be a LOT easier to smooth over ruffled feathers and join hands to sing "Kumbaya" if Obama gets the nod than if Hillary does.

What I find a bit surprising is that nobody has gone after Hillary for her de facto alliance with the Republicans and right-wing assholes like Sean Hannity to bash Obama. Does anyone think it's accidental or an amazing coincidence that Bill's former Press Secretary spent half the Pa. debate asking Obama about Rev. Wright and lapel flag pins than substantive issues like Iraq and the economy ?Has anyone seen the fawning softball interviews he's done with Hillary ? He did everything but snuggle up and call her : "Mommy".When they can't beat a candidate on substantive policy it is Republican SOP to attack on "social issues" and character. Hillary's using the very tactics that she and Bill squealed about so loudly when it was done to them. And Black Americans are tired of it and not inclined to be forgiving. And without solid Black support and turn-out Hillary LOSES in November.

bem401
04-28-2008, 08:44 AM
What I find a bit surprising is that nobody has gone after Hillary for her de facto alliance with the Republicans and right-wing assholes like Sean Hannity to bash Obama. Does anyone think it's accidental or an amazing coincidence that Bill's former Press Secretary spent half the Pa. debate asking Obama about Rev. Wright and lapel flag pins than substantive issues like Iraq and the economy ?Has anyone seen the fawning softball interviews he's done with Hillary ? He did everything but snuggle up and call her : "Mommy".When they can't beat a candidate on substantive policy it is Republican SOP to attack on "social issues" and character. Hillary's using the very tactics that she and Bill squealed about so loudly when it was done to them. And Black Americans are tired of it and not inclined to be forgiving. And without solid Black support and turn-out Hillary LOSES in November.

The mainstream media went ballistic over the way Stephanopoulos conducted himself, but that says as much about the MSM as it does about him.

These 2 candidates can't have a real debate because there is no significant difference between the two of them other than one is a woman and one is black.
The only thing they have to offer is "I'm not Bush". This country has real problems but nothing the Dems offer will help. With them, all we can count on is higher taxes and more divisiveness, and neither of those are good.

Eric Stoner
04-28-2008, 09:26 AM
The mainstream media went ballistic over the way Stephanopoulos conducted himself, but that says as much about the MSM as it does about him.

These 2 candidates can't have a real debate because there is no significant difference between the two of them other than one is a woman and one is black.
The only thing they have to offer is "I'm not Bush". This country has real problems but nothing the Dems offer will help. With them, all we can count on is higher taxes and more divisiveness, and neither of those are good.

Yeah but they waited for the debate. He was NEVER criticized for his fawning, obsequious interviews of Bill and Hill over the years.

bem401
04-28-2008, 09:39 AM
Yeah but they waited for the debate. He was NEVER criticized for his fawning, obsequious interviews of Bill and Hill over the years.


He actually surprised me by asking her some real questions though. I do agree however that he was tougher on Obama. As to Sean Hannity, he is entitled to his opinion and I agree with his position a lot more often than I disagree with it. He is certainly right-wing. I'm not sure that makes him an asshole, however.

Eric Stoner
04-28-2008, 10:03 AM
He actually surprised me by asking her some real questions though. I do agree however that he was tougher on Obama. As to Sean Hannity, he is entitled to his opinion and I agree with his position a lot more often than I disagree with it. He is certainly right-wing. I'm not sure that makes him an asshole, however.

I used to like Hannity until he became insufferably full of himself and adopted an attitude of moral superiority. Always quick to bash a Lib. he is anything but fair and evenhanded when it comes to Republicans and Conservatives .
He is even MORE fawning and obsequious than Stephanopoulos when he interviews guys like Cheney and Bush.

bem401
04-28-2008, 10:30 AM
I used to like Hannity until he became insufferably full of himself and adopted an attitude of moral superiority. Always quick to bash a Lib. he is anything but fair and evenhanded when it comes to Republicans and Conservatives .
He is even MORE fawning and obsequious than Stephanopoulos when he interviews guys like Cheney and Bush.

I can see why you'd think that way. I agree with most of his positions but can see how he offends. I don't like his habit of laughing when detailing the travails of the liberals. I think it weakens his message, which I generally agree with.

I also do not like the way Mark Levin sinks to name calling and trash-calling. I think he makes a compelling argument but then he can't resist throwing an insult in there. I think he damages his case by doing that.

Eric Stoner
04-28-2008, 12:11 PM
I can see why you'd think that way. I agree with most of his positions but can see how he offends. I don't like his habit of laughing when detailing the travails of the liberals. I think it weakens his message, which I generally agree with.

I also do not like the way Mark Levin sinks to name calling and trash-calling. I think he makes a compelling argument but then he can't resist throwing an insult in there. I think he damages his case by doing that.

Levin and I are in basic agreement on Constitutional philosophy and limited government but he is so rabid and so vicious that I can't listen to him. He is so gratuitously insulting and so disrespectful and condescending toward those who disagree with him that I agree that he detracts from what ought to be a potent message.

If Scalia and Ginsburg can be best friends which they are; if William F. Buckley and John Kenneth Galbraith could be life long friends then why do cranks like Levin find it necessary to personalize political disagreement ?

bem401
04-28-2008, 03:00 PM
If Scalia and Ginsburg can be best friends which they are; if William F. Buckley and John Kenneth Galbraith could be life long friends then why do cranks like Levin find it necessary to personalize political disagreement ?

I think he might think he is giving the liberals a dose of their own medicine because the liberals tend to resort to that sort of tactic fairly often. Look at how they personally attack Coulter, Malkin, Limbaugh and even throw shit and try to shout them down when they can. The party of free speech-- yeah, right.

But I do think Levin does himself a disservice by stooping to their level instead of just defeating them on the merits of his arguments. He did write a great book though about his dog. LOL.

Eric Stoner
04-29-2008, 07:16 AM
I think he might think he is giving the liberals a dose of their own medicine because the liberals tend to resort to that sort of tactic fairly often. Look at how they personally attack Coulter, Malkin, Limbaugh and even throw shit and try to shout them down when they can. The party of free speech-- yeah, right.

But I do think Levin does himself a disservice by stooping to their level instead of just defeating them on the merits of his arguments. He did write a great book though about his dog. LOL.

I agree. "Rescuing Sprite" was heartwarming.

There are plenty of Libs who do not practice civil discourse. So what ? Why get down to their level ?

It's funny but all 3 conservatives you list all share a couple of traits : factual carelessness and a complete inability to admit error. Coulter especially. Her scholarship in "TREASON" was incredibly incomplete and slipshod.
Malkin lets her anger cloud her judgment.
Rush is a special case. I like Rush. I agree with him about a number of things.
I like his good humored approach BUT he can be factually careless and often relies on questionable sources for his facts; which are sometimes incorrect and often incomplete.

We can flip the coin over and cite plenty of Libs who are just as bad and even worse. Paul Krugman is my personal favorite. Nobody cherry picks facts he likes while ignoring others better than " P.K." And that whole Air America crowd is so factually delinquent and divorced from reality as to qualify for their own planet.

bem401
04-29-2008, 07:30 AM
I only mentioned those 3 conservatives because they have been subjected to really irrelevant "over-the-top" attacks. I don't care much for Coulter but I do like Malkin and Rush. Coulter gets pies thrown at her, there are Malkin hate sites, and Al Franken wrote a Rush hate book. I agree, the conservatives would do better to stick to the facts ( on which they win ) than to sink to personal insults.

Eric Stoner
04-29-2008, 09:37 AM
I only mentioned those 3 conservatives because they have been subjected to really irrelevant "over-the-top" attacks. I don't care much for Coulter but I do like Malkin and Rush. Coulter gets pies thrown at her, there are Malkin hate sites, and Al Franken wrote a Rush hate book. I agree, the conservatives would do better to stick to the facts ( on which they win ) than to sink to personal insults.

Well that's fine as far as it goes. Aside from her repugnant personality and immaturity Coulter tries to re-write history. I've often said : "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but there's one set of facts for everybody." Coulter totally ignores the maxim. The reason she gets pies thrown at her is that she deserves them and in fact INVITES that sort of behavior. All she cares about is selling books and collecting speaking fees.

Malkin is alright but she doesn't know everything. She just thinks she does.

As far as sticking to the facts; I think EVERYBODY ought to do that. Conservatives; Liberals ; Moderates. Everybody.

TarsTone
04-29-2008, 10:32 AM
Well that's fine as far as it goes. Aside from her repugnant personality and immaturity Coulter tries to re-write history. I've often said : "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but there's one set of facts for everybody." Coulter totally ignores the maxim. The reason she gets pies thrown at her is that she deserves them and in fact INVITES that sort of behavior.
I find Coulter to be obnoxious and ignorant, but when it comes to rewriting history, can we honestly single her out? Does Michael Moore not rewrite the past, present, and everything related to common sense? How many times has he had pies thrown at him or been prevented from giving a speech?

The fact is, the left wing has a major problem with respect for opposing views. A problem that wouldn't be so outrageous if they didn't constantly play the "intolerance" and "fascism" card.

Eric Stoner
04-29-2008, 10:59 AM
I find Coulter to be obnoxious and ignorant, but when it comes to rewriting history, can we honestly single her out? Does Michael Moore not rewrite the past, present, and everything related to common sense? How many times has he had pies thrown at him or been prevented from giving a speech?

The fact is, the left wing has a major problem with respect for opposing views. A problem that wouldn't be so outrageous if they didn't constantly play the "intolerance" and "fascism" card.

Michael Moore is a horse's ass and world class hypocrite. Everything you need to know about him is that he REFUSES to appear in anything but a friendly forum.

I'm all for respecting opposing views BUT many Conservatives are NOT tolerant.

TarsTone
04-29-2008, 11:18 AM
^This is not to defend the conservatives, as I'm personally a moderate....But when was the last time some liberal figure was thrown pies at, or had their speech interrupted by screaming lunatics rushing on stage?...When it comes down to it, despite all their sanctimonious grandstanding about free speech, liberals are overtly and violently intolerant of opposing views; much more so than the right. The sad part is they don't know how much their hypocrisy alienates those who might otherwise sympathize with their causes.

Eric Stoner
04-29-2008, 11:51 AM
^This is not to defend the conservatives, as I'm personally a moderate....But when was the last time some liberal figure was thrown pies at, or had their speech interrupted by screaming lunatics rushing on stage?...When it comes down to it, despite all their sanctimonious grandstanding about free speech, liberals are overtly and violently intolerant of opposing views; much more so than the right. The sad part is they don't know how much their hypocrisy alienates those who might otherwise sympathize with their causes.

I'm not arguing the point. Over the past few decades the Left has been much more intolerant of Right wing thought and speech than the converse. Heckling and other disruptive behavior has become all too common especially on college campuses. The irony is incredible. Supposed bastions of academic freedom and independent thought too often tolerate boorish and even Nazi-like behavior by leftist demonstrators against right-wing speakers. As long as they feel "offended" they think they have the right to do and say as they please regardless of the rights of others.
They are the ones who came up with "speech codes" that punish speech and ideas which they do not like or agree with. They're the ones who want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and use it to "Hush Rush". These are the same people that love to wave the Constitution and Bill of Rights EXCEPT when it means conferring equal speech rights to those whose ideas "offend" them.

TarsTone
04-29-2008, 11:54 AM
^ Couldn't have said it better myself.