Chef Jim Posted January 12, 2010 Posted January 12, 2010 Of course it is my oipinion. I belie he is more qualified to take the country down the path that I see is the right path. I have liberal socialist beliefs... He has liberal socialist beliefs. There, I said those dirty words. That probably scares you. Don't worry, he won't be in office too much longer and we will get the same cluster !@#$ that has been existing between the parties every 4-8 years. As much as I disagreeed with the past republicans and the Clinton's... They never scared me. So having socialist beliefs in your mind is all it takes to be qualified to lead the country? Holy farging ****. So you'd vote for Keith Olbermann if he ran??
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 12, 2010 Posted January 12, 2010 So it is ok for liberals to look down on everyone because they claim they're trying to help while they're really just on a power grab. But it is not ok for conservatives to look down on everyone because they don't claim they're trying to help while they're really just on a power grab. I think I get what you're saying. Random BS counts, even when exposed as a racist. This is good news for Reid and all people who think dialect is directly related to skin color. Whatever. I will just let it go... You and others on this board are at many polar opposites than some... It is what it is... Can't we all just go back to be Bills' fans with you hating on Canadians? Sorry I bring it up. I am not doing it change anyone... I am just speaking my beliefs like you are doing. Now unless you are self-proclaimed pompous wannabees like Darin, Tom, and others... I expect you to take this olive branch... If not fire away like the others do.
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 12, 2010 Posted January 12, 2010 So having socialist beliefs in your mind is all it takes to be qualified to lead the country? Holy farging ****. So you'd vote for Keith Olbermann if he ran?? Lead the country in the direction I want it to be led.
Chef Jim Posted January 12, 2010 Posted January 12, 2010 Lead the country in the direction I want it to be led. Having the belief and leading are two different things. I take it you're never lead anything more than your children to the dinning room table.
ieatcrayonz Posted January 12, 2010 Posted January 12, 2010 Whatever. I will just let it go... You and others on this board are at many polar opposites than some... It is what it is... Can't we all just go back to be Bills' fans with you hating on Canadians? Sorry I bring it up. I am not doing it change anyone... I am just speaking my beliefs like you are doing. Now unless you are self-proclaimed pompous wannabees like Darin, Tom, and others... I expect you to take this olive branch... If not fire away like the others do. I'm just trying to understand why it is ok for blzrul to say, not imply, that Obama's natural language is basically "street" because his skin is black. I don't think that is ok. I don't think it would be ok for Darin or you or me or Harry Reid to say it either. My guess is that Obama did not suddenly start speaking well when he was taught by all of those wonderful white professors at Harvard. My guess is that it happened because he was raised abroad and in Hawaii where there are not a lot of inner city problems that manifest themselves in "ebonics". Maybe the liberals are right and it is the moderate pigmentation that causes it. Like I said Reid is a racist and not a racist depending on his audience and what serves his purposes well.
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 12, 2010 Posted January 12, 2010 I'm just trying to understand why it is ok for blzrul to say, not imply, that Obama's natural language is basically "street" because his skin is black. I don't think that is ok. I don't think it would be ok for Darin or you or me or Harry Reid to say it either. My guess is that Obama did not suddenly start speaking well when he was taught by all of those wonderful white professors at Harvard. My guess is that it happened because he was raised abroad and in Hawaii where there are not a lot of inner city problems that manifest themselves in "ebonics". Maybe the liberals are right and it is the moderate pigmentation that causes it. Like I said Reid is a racist and not a racist depending on his audience and what serves his purposes well. Then we are ALL racist... You, me and everybody else.
ieatcrayonz Posted January 12, 2010 Posted January 12, 2010 Then we are ALL racist... You, me and everybody else. How?
ieatcrayonz Posted January 12, 2010 Posted January 12, 2010 You hate on Canadians. A grouping of dumb people does not equate to a race. It is more of a culture than a race. Granted it is two steps above a culture found in yogurt, but still it is a culture. As far as I'm concerned, there is only one human race.
Magox Posted January 12, 2010 Posted January 12, 2010 A grouping of dumb people does not equate to a race. It is more of a culture than a race. Granted it is two steps above a culture found in yogurt, but still it is a culture. As far as I'm concerned, there is only one human race.
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 12, 2010 Posted January 12, 2010 A grouping of dumb people does not equate to a race. It is more of a culture than a race. Granted it is two steps above a culture found in yogurt, but still it is a culture. As far as I'm concerned, there is only one human race. Where do you come up with this stuff... Priceless!
Chef Jim Posted January 12, 2010 Posted January 12, 2010 A grouping of dumb people does not equate to a race. It is more of a culture than a race. Granted it is two steps above a culture found in yogurt, but still it is a culture. As far as I'm concerned, there is only one human race. Oh I don't know, to me the culture found in yogurt and cheese is some of the most amazing culture in the world.
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 12, 2010 Posted January 12, 2010 Oh I don't know, to me the culture found in yogurt and cheese is some of the most amazing culture in the world. Not so much when you come down with TB. I here the culture in the sanitarium is pretty jumping!
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 Not quite what he said. A race baiting polarizing black candidate would never win an election. But a populist, eloquent guy who comes at the right time, will - regardless of color. I was more questioning the Democratic mind set. Why is it important they have a electable black candidate? Is it not the good of the country that is supposed to the prime factor? Why even bother comparing him to Al Sharpton? Because they are both black? I doubt if your regardless of color remark is correct. If Obama was a white Chicago politician with the exact same resume he would still be that-a Chicago politician, not president The man is not qualified for the office and proves it on a daily basis
GG Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 I was more questioning the Democratic mind set. Why is it important they have a electable black candidate? Is it not the good of the country that is supposed to the prime factor?Why even bother comparing him to Al Sharpton? Because they are both black? I doubt if your regardless of color remark is correct. If Obama was a white Chicago politician with the exact same resume he would still be that-a Chicago politician, not president The man is not qualified for the office and proves it on a daily basis I think his color helped him get visibility on the national stage in 2004. But in the primaries, he and his team soundly defeated the strongest political machine in a generation. That was not due to his color. That he was totally unprepared for the job is not really the issue of why he was elected.
OCinBuffalo Posted January 16, 2010 Posted January 16, 2010 And there we have it folks, 38 posts in we've got Sarah Palin. Soooo.... It's no longer Bush Derangement Syndrome...now its Palin Derangement Syndrome? ....or.... is it merely Derangement Syndrome? How about just Derangement? How on God's green earth this poor woman from Alaska generates this much....fear? irrationality? nonsense? and definitely, obsession, is beyond me. I bet I could go for 3 months straight without even thinking about Palin...but, alas, I can't, because every time I turn around I have some leftist bringing her up all over again. Mark my words: if they keep doing this, they are going to immunize Palin. And then, when nothing ever sticks to her anymore, what will they do? These idiots did the same thing to Reagan, and he ended up not only being President, but a darn good one. He/we heard it so often, he/we just didn't care what they said anymore. They don't seem to understand that they are about 75% of the way to doing the very same thing with Palin. ....and of course, if it the succeed in immunizing Palin, thus getting her elected, it will be everybody else's fault.
Booster4324 Posted January 16, 2010 Posted January 16, 2010 Soooo.... It's no longer Bush Derangement Syndrome...now its Palin Derangement Syndrome? ....or.... is it merely Derangement Syndrome? How about just Derangement? How on God's green earth this poor woman from Alaska generates this much....fear? irrationality? nonsense? and definitely, obsession, is beyond me. I bet I could go for 3 months straight without even thinking about Palin...but, alas, I can't, because every time I turn around I have some leftist bringing her up all over again. Mark my words: if they keep doing this, they are going to immunize Palin. And then, when nothing ever sticks to her anymore, what will they do? These idiots did the same thing to Reagan, and he ended up not only being President, but a darn good one. He/we heard it so often, he/we just didn't care what they said anymore. They don't seem to understand that they are about 75% of the way to doing the very same thing with Palin. ....and of course, if it the succeed in immunizing Palin, thus getting her elected, it will be everybody else's fault. Did you just compare Reagan to Palin? Good god sober up.
OCinBuffalo Posted January 16, 2010 Posted January 16, 2010 Did you just compare Reagan to Palin? Good god sober up. Yes, the Democrats and the media: 1. Never called Reagan stupid 2. Never called Reagan out of touch 3. Never called Reagan a lightweight on foreign policy 4. Never called Reagan inexperienced 5. Never called Reagan dangerous and...most importantly, Never had an ongoing obsession with repeating 1-5 from the time he switched parties right through his presidency, right up to the time that: that pesky wall came down and the Soviet Union collapsed, and they all had to get a grip on reality once and for all. You're right. I am drunk and none of these things happened, and therefore, they sure can't happen again. Again, Get a Grip.
Booster4324 Posted January 16, 2010 Posted January 16, 2010 Yes, the Democrats and the media: 1. Never called Reagan stupid 2. Never called Reagan out of touch 3. Never called Reagan a lightweight on foreign policy 4. Never called Reagan inexperienced 5. Never called Reagan dangerous and...most importantly, Never had an ongoing obsession with repeating 1-5 from the time he switched parties right through his presidency, right up to the time that: that pesky wall came down and the Soviet Union collapsed, and they all had to get a grip on reality once and for all. You're right. I am drunk and none of these things happened, and therefore, they sure can't happen again. Again, Get a Grip. Now I am feeling bad, this is too easy. Ok who on the conservative side is wiling to equate Reagan and Palin in anything other than a rhyme. <crickets> Hey on the positive side, Wacka might come to your defense. I doubt it though as he shows more sense.
OCinBuffalo Posted January 16, 2010 Posted January 16, 2010 Did you just compare Reagan to Palin? Good god sober up. Also, hypocrisy check: We all know I have been drinking, but, why are you up at 5 am on Saturday? Preparing for your morning dance in the dumpster? Going swimming? Checking to see if I posted anything? Or, have you been drinking too?
Recommended Posts