Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: Next Secretary of State for the US

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312

    Default Next Secretary of State for the US

    Sometimes while shaving I think about random stuff and this time it was the Obama surrender to the GOP on the Bush Tax Cuts. Not that I am really surprised that the Coward in Chief wouldn't put up a fight, but a lot of leftist merkins seem to be very upset about that.

    If this is the kind of president Obama wants to be (and most likely a one term president to boot) then Ms Clinton will at some point have to start distancing herself from him to have a fighting chance in the 2016 elections. Being associated with Obama for an extended period in which he won't get anything done at all that hasn't got GOP written large over it might kill all her remaining ambition. Now, I don't think Ms Clinton is much into political suicide and I do think she won't stay in this particular administration much longer. Give it a couple of months and then she'll find a reason to step down.

    Any ideas as to who may be her successor ?
    Congratulations America

  2. #2
    Won't Ms Clinton be getting on a bit by 2016?

  3. #3
    Clinton probably would have made a good, fair deal on the tax cuts months ago. She's a realist about these issues, not as immature as Obama.

    Our next Secretary of State will probably be a relative unknown from within the State Dept. Or a Democrat from the Senate who has a particular love of these issues.

  4. #4
    "You left me for a secretary!"

    "He was the Secretary of State!"

    e: or was it the Treasury. Anyway
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    State! I think.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    not as immature as Obama.
    Because the GOP is a shinning example of maturity, but hey, lets ignore that and instead take potshots at Obama for resisting politics-as-usual!

    I should remember this the next time one of the girls throws a tantrum on the floor. It would immature of me not to give in
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 12-08-2010 at 12:24 PM.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Clinton probably would have made a good, fair deal on the tax cuts months ago.
    What evidence is there to suppose this, except for her being white and not terrifying to paranoid Jews? She's held elective office for less time that Barry, hasn't she?
    She's a realist about these issues, not as immature as Obama.
    Ignoring Dread's 's hard-partisan posts...


    The W tax cuts were disastrous pandering to two groups: a) the very wealthy who funded his presidential run, and b) general populism. Granted, it is a nuanced issue, as Wiggin points out, and of which I'm quite aware. The only conscionable action would be to allow the over-250 to expire, and extend the under 250 for no more than two years. {and yes, 250 is a relatively arbitrary number, but won't any cutoff be so?} That way we don't have a tax increase on the group that will actually spend the money (though for them it really is a pittance), yet we incur less debt increase. By having a short extension, we allow economic stimulus but don't make it a long-term windfall at the expense of our debt.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    What evidence is there to suppose this, except for her being white and not terrifying to paranoid Jews? She's held elective office for less time that Barry, hasn't she?


    Ignoring Dread's 's hard-partisan posts...


    The W tax cuts were disastrous pandering to two groups: a) the very wealthy who funded his presidential run, and b) general populism. Granted, it is a nuanced issue, as Wiggin points out, and of which I'm quite aware. The only conscionable action would be to allow the over-250 to expire, and extend the under 250 for no more than two years. {and yes, 250 is a relatively arbitrary number, but won't any cutoff be so?} That way we don't have a tax increase on the group that will actually spend the money (though for them it really is a pittance), yet we incur less debt increase. By having a short extension, we allow economic stimulus but don't make it a long-term windfall at the expense of our debt.
    All fine and well, but that's not really what we're talking about. We're talking about that Clinton most likely will jump ship soon and that we'll see a new face at State. Whose face you expect?
    Congratulations America

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Clinton probably would have made a good, fair deal on the tax cuts months ago. She's a realist about these issues, not as immature as Obama.

    Our next Secretary of State will probably be a relative unknown from within the State Dept. Or a Democrat from the Senate who has a particular love of these issues.
    You really think a senator would like to join the sinking ship?
    Congratulations America

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    All fine and well, but that's not really what we're talking about. We're talking about that Clinton most likely will jump ship soon and that we'll see a new face at State. Whose face you expect?
    1) Is there a reason to expect this, other than State being a hard, relatively thankless job?

    2) Not much point in speculating, since historically it has often been hard to predict.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    What evidence is there to suppose this, except for her being white and not terrifying to paranoid Jews? She's held elective office for less time that Barry, hasn't she?
    I took some pains deciding how and whether to address this, but this was completely inappropriate. Out of nowhere, you lobbed at me your thinly veiled theory that many Jews are Jewish supremacists who hate Obama because he's black or about Israel. It's vile, it's racist and it was totally unsubstantiated.

    You took this behavior up a notch here and it was too far. But what you did in this thread is also out of line. Had it been towards anyone else here, there's a good chance I would have given you points for trolling and being so disrespectful to a member.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Anyway, you'd have to be blind to miss the signs; Democrats are no longer willing to be associated with bendover backwards Barry. How could Clinton tie herself to the mast of that particular sinking ship if she ever wants to have another go again.

    I wonder how many people regret not having voted for her in the primaries.
    Congratulations America

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    I wonder how many people regret not having voted for her in the primaries.
    I regret people not voting for her in the primaries.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  14. #14
    If this is the kind of president Obama wants to be (and most likely a one term president to boot)
    I'll be pissed if this is the case, I really want the economy to soar over the next few years. If George W. Bush can get 8 years by keeping the public out of the loop and being useless, then I hope Obama can get 8 years by being substantially more open and passing huge reforms. And not being a "bend over barry" to the lobbyist, and wealthy. If a guy is trying to give money to the people who have no power, it's obviously telling you he's not doing it for lobbyists. Trickle down is slow, and in efficient, and if we want the money to trickle down to the middle class, then why not put it there directly? Or do a separate bill right now for just tax cuts on the middle class, and make the republicans look bad if they try to deny it, and then let this one expire. Or pass some other provision to give the middle class roughly that much funds back, and let these tax cuts expire.
    I regret people not voting for her in the primaries.
    She was okay. I'd vote for her over McCain.
    Last edited by Lebanese Dragon; 12-10-2010 at 01:42 AM.

  15. #15
    Ah! How enlightening it was to check back into this thread!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I took some pains deciding how and whether to address this, but this was completely inappropriate.
    You're referring to this:
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    What evidence is there to suppose this, except for her being white and not terrifying to paranoid Jews? She's held elective office for less time that Barry, hasn't she?


    Ignoring Dread's 's hard-partisan posts...


    The W tax cuts were disastrous pandering to two groups: a) the very wealthy who funded his presidential run, and b) general populism. Granted, it is a nuanced issue, as Wiggin points out, and of which I'm quite aware. The only conscionable action would be to allow the over-250 to expire, and extend the under 250 for no more than two years. {and yes, 250 is a relatively arbitrary number, but won't any cutoff be so?} That way we don't have a tax increase on the group that will actually spend the money (though for them it really is a pittance), yet we incur less debt increase. By having a short extension, we allow economic stimulus but don't make it a long-term windfall at the expense of our debt.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Out of nowhere, you lobbed at me your thinly veiled theory that many Jews are Jewish supremacists who hate Obama because he's black or about Israel.
    1) No more out of nowhere than your criticisms of Obama since the primaries, and the "partisan blah blah blah" crap you've tossed at me any time I recite inconvenient facts, like, say, Republicans are the party of deficits (patently true and proved many time by me). You also respond to inconvenient truths with stuff like "Ignoring Tear's hard-partisan posts...," which I mirror back at you here. So you pull the "Clinton wouldn't do this" statement out of your ass without a shred of proof, and what do you expect?

    2) That's a false characterization, since a) I don't even have a theory, and b) what I said before was effectively to recall that phase of the primary season where there was reporting of a "turn Jews against Obama" whispering campaign about his anti-Israeli stance, and that he was "anti-Semitic like so many other blacks." The pundits argued about whether the slurs were from Clinton, McCain, or the GOP in general, but it was damned ugly. I'll also note that the first time I brought this up, I made it very clear that I was citing the same whispering campaign about Obama, which you felt necessary to neglect in your charge of "thinly veiled theory." I've got news for you, old chap, but said "thinly veiled theory" must be attributed to those who tried to smear Obama by using that logic, not people who cite it.

    Me, I've just said that you and Loki turned into virulently anti-Obama partisans around this time. Could be a coincidence, but neither of you have ever adequately defended your hatred of Obama; you haven't defended its magnitude, nor have you defended its existence while at the same time lauding the policies of HRC, which really aren't that different than Obama's (and who qualifications for office were fewer, since she arguably won a senate seat by combined virtue of being the wife of Billy and the gaffes of her opponent).


    So I'm not theorizing "that many Jews are Jewish supremacists who hate Obama because he's black or about Israel." I'm putting one and one together and accusing you and Loki of being, at worst, racist, or at best, easily swayed by transparent and false race baiting.

    It's vile, it's racist and it was totally unsubstantiated.
    Clever of you to try to turn that into me being a racist, but parsimoniously that act of accusing individuals of being racists is not in and of itself racist, especially when it is accompanied by evidence (or at least the utter absence of counter-evidence to the contrary). Neither you nor Loki have convincingly backed your wildly inappropriate (given your other stated predilections) dislike of Obama. That coupled with the timing of both of you starting to spout anti-Obama rhetoric, and, well, you can see why somebody would come to a certain conclusion. But I'll give you this: you haven't called him a "house N*****." But one doesn't need to drop the N-bomb to be a racist.

    You took this behavior up a notch here and it was too far. But what you did in this thread is also out of line. Had it been towards anyone else here, there's a good chance I would have given you points for trolling and being so disrespectful to a member.
    Ah, I see. But this ("Or more likely, is it that moderators say mean things to you in their non-mod capacity?") is a direct taunt, and completely unwarranted by the thread in question, and I believe justified my response, which was that Loki is a "fucking wanker." In contrast, what I have said here is a direct response to what you are saying (and have been saying since, oh, late 2007), which is a mindless and unsubstantiated criticism of Obama. You get that? On topic, in direct response, and a valid criticism of your lack of substance. I have pressed both you and Loki for actual substance, but I get boilerplate. Boilerplate that is really insulting to Obama. Me, I'm no Obama fanboy. I think as president he has been a mediocre leader on multiple fronts, though I deeply appreciate that he seems to be trying to be the most thoughtful leader we've had in quite a while. But he was a damned site better than "more of the same" McCain, and more electable than Hillary, who had been demonized for 16 straight years at that point (and, to reiterate, not very qualified).



    And back to that warning: good to see that the rules are clear and consistently enforced. You lamely defending that warning by saying it was 5 days after the fact? Well, it was five days since I had checked that thread, and Loki's transparent troll pissed me off (I had not whined about any statements of other forum members, but was complaining about the Apple thread being closed). But I think NOW I understand why I was warned.

  16. #16
    So let me get this straight...you read about a secret Jewish campaign to get Jews not to like Obama. Despite this he was elected with heavy margins in states with high Jewish populations.

    I -- who never favored Obama's economic policies -- found myself disliking all the Democratic candidates as the economy plunged deeper into recession before the election. But somehow the real issue here is the secret Jewish campaign against Obama on Israel issues. Even though I have repeatedly agreed with Obama's positions on Israel, clearly this is just a front for the secret conspiracy of Zionist Imperialist antipathy that Jews hold for Obama because of his race and secret anti-Israel positions.

    This despite monthly polling of Jews by Gallup that showed quite a different story in the run-up to the 2008 election.

    October 23, 2008
    Obama Winning Over the Jewish Vote[/b]

    Three-quarters of U.S. Jewish voters now plan to back Obama for president
    by Lydia Saad

    PRINCETON, NJ -- Jewish voters nationwide have grown increasingly comfortable with voting for Barack Obama for president since the Illinois senator secured the Democratic nomination in June. They now favor Obama over John McCain by more than 3 to 1, 74% to 22%.

    This is based on monthly averages of Gallup Poll Daily tracking results, including interviews with more than 500 Jewish registered voters each month.

    Support for Obama among all registered voters was fairly stable from June through September, but then rose sharply in October -- in apparent reaction to the U.S. economic crisis. By contrast, support for Obama among Jewish voters has expanded more gradually, from the low 60% range in June and July to 66% in August, 69% in September, and 74% today.

    The current proportion of U.S. Jews backing Obama is identical to the level of support the Democratic ticket of John Kerry and John Edwards received in the 2004 presidential election (74%). It is only slightly lower than what Al Gore and Joe Lieberman received in 2000 (80%) -- when the first Jewish American appeared on the presidential ticket of a major party.

    Recent support for Obama is a bit higher among older Jews than among Jews younger than 55. According to combined Gallup Poll Daily tracking data from Sept. 1 through Oct. 21, an average of 74% of Jews aged 55 and older supported Obama for president across this period, compared with about two-thirds of younger Jews.

    The slightly more pro-McCain orientation of the youngest category of Jewish voters (those 18 to 34) could be related to the fact that they are more apt than older Jewish voters to consider themselves political conservatives (29% vs. 16%). However, ideology does not appear to explain the gap between middle-aged and older Jewish voters. Whereas those 35 to 54 are more likely to support McCain, they are no more likely than older Jewish voters to describe their political views as conservative.

    There is little difference among Jewish voters by age in their basic party identification. Between 55% and 57% of all three age groups are Democratic, 28% to 30% are independent, and only 13% to 17% are Republican.

    Bottom Line

    The Obama/Biden ticket is poised to perform about on par with other recent Democratic presidential tickets when it comes to support from American Jewish voters.

    Survey Methods

    The monthly averages of Gallup Poll Daily tracking reported here span from June 1, 2008, through Oct. 21, 2008. Monthly results based on all registered voters are generally based on more than 23,000 interviews conducted in each full month, and 19,400 interviews conducted in the partial month of October. For results based on samples of this size, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage points.

    The monthly results of Jewish registered voters are generally based on more than 650 interviews conducted in each full month, and 564 interviews conducted in the partial month of October. The exact sample sizes and associated margins of sampling error for each month's results are detailed in the accompanying table.

    Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

    In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/111424/ob...wish-vote.aspx
    It's been pretty sad to watch your emotional-intellectual breakdown. Sort of like a dog coming in from the rain and shaking off its wet fur all over the room. But I never expected it to veer into this kind of vile rhetoric from you. I hate to call someone a racist, but you're being racist.

  17. #17
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Oooooo My Turn!

    I'm not a fan of Obama. And neither is Hazir at the moment.

    Can you tie that to the fact that we are gay Tear? Are we racist?

    Really, yer saying Loki and Dread don't like the Big O cause they are Jewish? (What about Wiggin?) And that's NOT racist?
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    Oooooo My Turn!

    I'm not a fan of Obama. And neither is Hazir at the moment.

    Can you tie that to the fact that we are gay Tear? Are we racist?

    Really, yer saying Loki and Dread don't like the Big O cause they are Jewish? (What about Wiggin?) And that's NOT racist?
    Add me to the list. Though I'm mostly indifferent. I think he's gone about things DEAD WRONG a number of times, but hey, that happens. I only get actively pissed thinking about how there is a legislative majority, a court ruling with global jurisdiction, and the direct federal bureaucracy, including the Joint Chiefs, all in favor of getting rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and he STILL won't do a damn thing, not even to the point of telling Justice to abandon that appeal, because he'll only be satisfied taking action if there's a supermajority in the Senate demanding he act.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    So let me get this straight...you read about a secret Jewish campaign to get Jews not to like Obama.
    Not a secret, since the story was carried in all the major news sources. We discussed it in CC if you recall. And IIRC the press never found who was behind the campaign. But feel free to try to make my comments sound more sinister.

    Despite this he was elected with heavy margins in states with high Jewish populations.
    Wow. You mean the liberal ones?

    Shocking, since a) only a subset of Jews can be manipulated on Israeli issues (Loki has always been unambiguously one, you are sort of one, Wiggin not at all AFAIK), b) next to blacks, Jews more than any other group vote overwhelmingly Dem (thus not reasonable to expect an exodus in response to an obvious smear), and c) presumably there was no stampede to believe the slurs, especially since Obama immediately thereafter did due diligence by visiting a bunch of Jewish groups and giving speeches with specifics about his Israel positions. Coincidentally the point during the campaign where you and Loki started treating Obama like the antichrist, which is odd given how close his policies were to Clinton, whom you both lauded.
    I -- who never favored Obama's economic policies --
    But you favored Clinton's which were only marginally different. Impossible to reconcile your degree of animus towards Obama with your favorable view of Clinton, as illustrated in your baseless comment that started our discussion IN THIS THREAD.

    found myself disliking all the Democratic candidates
    I beg to differ. You didn't come across as a Republican until after Obama had the nomination sewn up. Your unambiguous hatred of Obama came many months before. Again, Loki more pronounced than you.

    Doesn't even matter really, since your hatred of him is so wildly and spectacularly out of proportion. After all, wasn't it just a few weeks ago that you were telling me how you and Loki were NYC Jews and thus MUST be fairly liberal?

    as the economy plunged deeper into recession before the election.
    Again, the economy came way after you and Loki started trashing Obama as the socialist antichrist. Quite strange behavior from guys whom I've been assured are liberal NY Jews.

    And yet a) you favored Clinton, and b) your dislike of all the Democratic candidates (which I really don't remember) was actually dislike of the Democratic nominee. I was paying close attention to you two ever since that Israel smear campaign and the advent of your strident anti-Obama rhetoric.

    But somehow the real issue here is the secret Jewish campaign against Obama on Israel issues.
    BS. Don't try to snake out of this by painting it as me against Jews. *I* am accusing *you and Loki* of hating Obama for reasons that you don't reveal, since your policy critiques are either a) totally vague, b) don't apply equally to Clinton, whom you guys actually liked some, and certainly have not demonized, and c) are just way the hell out of proportion.

    And it ain't a secret campaign if all the major news sources are talking about it, and Obama does the penance rounds with Jewish groups while carefully spelling out his "not soft of Arabs" Israeli policy. But again, clever attempt to change the dialog.

    Even though I have repeatedly agreed with Obama's positions on Israel,
    Have you? Both you and Loki were critical of his Israel policy during the campaign. Nice revisionist history.

    clearly this is just a front for the secret conspiracy of Zionist Imperialist antipathy that Jews hold for Obama because of his race and secret anti-Israel positions.
    BS attempt to change the dialog so it is about me being anti-semitic instead of being about you being driven by Israel and Jewish issues, and innuendo surrounding those.

    This despite monthly polling of Jews by Gallup that showed quite a different story in the run-up to the 2008 election.
    Right! Because the smear campaign only happened if all Jews turn against Obama! Nice straw man.

    All I've said is that
    a) the smear campaign happened and that Obama responded strongly to manage the damage
    b) the virulent and way out of proportion attacks from you and Loki started during the period of the smear campaign, and
    c) neither of you have been able to reconcile the degree of your hatred of Obama with your policy stands at the time or your opinions of other candidates.

    Parsimony argues bias. Could be racism. Could be you bought the smear campaign. Could just be a wild coincidence (though still you can't reconcile the wild incongruity of your virulent hatred and aggressive mockery of Obama, which goes well beyond anything that has been applied to even W in this forum.

    It's been pretty sad to watch your emotional-intellectual breakdown. Sort of like a dog coming in from the rain and shaking off its wet fur all over the room.
    Ah, I wondered when the personal slurs would arrive. This must be due to some intellectual and emotional breakdown. (Both at once! Woot!)

    You'll give yourself a warning, won't you?

    But I never expected it to veer into this kind of vile rhetoric from you. I hate to call someone a racist, but you're being racist.
    Yup, best way to defend a potential charge of racism is to accuse one of racism. Sadly, Wiggin is a more Jewishy Jew and Israel-ish Israeli than either of you, and I have never impugned him in any way on anything Jewish (or really on anything, since I admire his mind probably more than that of anybody else in the forum). His opinions on Obama, while relatively neutral when he's said much at all, have never shifted dramatically, nor been irreconcilable with his other professed beliefs. The contrast with you and Loki is striking. It's not your hatred of Obama that condemns you, it's how inconsistent that hatred is with other beliefs professed during the period under discussion. And the suspicious timing.

    But yeah, keep on trying to paint me as an anti-Semite. Loki once called be a rapist, and your accusations of racism carry about as much weight with me. It's a knee-jerk "poison the well" defense.

    BTW, I've accused Loki of this at other times, about things not involving Obama. He's flung the "anti-Semite" label around a lot, almost always with people who too aggressively criticized Israeli policies, or especially surrounding the pro-Israel lobby in the US. OK, there was also the Guardian. The Beeb. Mmm pretty much all academia.

    To your credit you're not as extreme as he is on these things, though pretty paranoid nonetheless. And these are non-Obama issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    Oooooo My Turn!
    Not a good idea. Seeing as your post has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand and is entirely personal, it can't be construed as anything but trolling. Then again, you're probably safe since our most active Mod is the person accusing me of anti-Semitism (and emotional-intellectual collapse!) , and b) generally I'm the only forum member who is held to the trolling and flaming rules.

    I'm not a fan of Obama.
    Thanks for supporting my point. Because, you see, you have always been FAR more conservative than Dread and Loki, and not surprisingly your opinion of Obama's politics is consistent with your politics (unlike them). Furthermore, you just don't like Obama's politics; you've never gotten nasty, you don't hate him, and you haven't launched a personal campaign to smear and attack him beyond reason at every opportunity.

    So what you illustrate for me is somebody who has a legitimate political gripe with Obama that is not a personal gripe. Given that Dread and Loki are more liberal than you, shouldn't their opinion of Obama be more moderate? I'm not asking that they like his policies or vote for him, but their animus goes beyond any reason. Lewk has not been as spiteful and unreasonable vicious about Obama as those two! How can that be? Doesn't that strike you as fantastically weird?

    And neither is Hazir at the moment.
    Hazir called Obama a "House N*****," then reiterated the point when the meaning of the term was diplomatically described and he was allowed an easy out. So clearly he is a bigot. I recommend not aligning yourself with him on a race issue.

    It is worth noting that he got no public admonition about that.

    Can you tie that to the fact that we are gay Tear? Are we racist?
    Couldn't say, though you are trolling.

    Really, yer saying Loki and Dread don't like the Big O cause they are Jewish?
    Read carefully. I didn't say that.

    (What about Wiggin?)
    Yeah, what about him? He's far more overtly jewishy than either Loki or Dread, isn't he? Yet a) I didn't mention him, this time or a couple of times before, and b) I actually get along with him better than 90% of the forum. That's because his opinions vis-a-vis Obama are consistent and proportional to his other opinions, nor did they shift dramatically.

    And that's NOT racist?
    No, it's not. I recommend that you read rather than jerking your knee. This isn't the first time I have posted this theory, and my arguments haven't changed.

    Edit:

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Add me to the list. Though I'm mostly indifferent. I think he's gone about things DEAD WRONG a number of times, but hey, that happens.
    Emphasis mine. So you think that I'm going about it wrong, but not actually wrong?

    I only get actively pissed thinking about how there is a legislative majority, a court ruling with global jurisdiction, and the direct federal bureaucracy, including the Joint Chiefs, all in favor of getting rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and he STILL won't do a damn thing, not even to the point of telling Justice to abandon that appeal, because he'll only be satisfied taking action if there's a supermajority in the Senate demanding he act.
    I'm on record here as being critical of the same thing. Obama is a wimpy leader (I did think he'd be better). Still, my agenda before the primaries even started was that W's policies be repudiated. I said then and many times since that my primary vote was cast for the Dem I considered most able to win, barring a true liberal like Kucinic. I would have been just as happy with HRC winning. And in the general when McCain acted like a W clone, well, the deal was sealed.
    Last edited by ']['ear; 12-14-2010 at 07:58 PM.

  20. #20
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Yep, I'm disagreeing with you....so I MUST be trolling.

    Actually, I've considered Loki to be more conservative than me on a theoretical level for a long time. Can't wait to see what he turns into when he gets a real job.

    Dread has gotten more conservative as he's gotten older and into the real world of having a job...roughly around the same time Obama came on the scene in a serious way. I'm gonna go with Occam's Razor on that one....he got a real paycheck, looked at his tax burden...and a fiscal conservative was born Big O becomes the (D) Poster Boy, thus gets the spurn from Dread.

    Oh, and just because this isn't the first time you posted this theory does not make is a correct theory...I don't think you will find anyone agreeing with it. (Not that consensus would make it incorrect, but it may mean that you might want to check your math)
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    Yep, I'm disagreeing with you....so I MUST be trolling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    Oooooo My Turn!

    I'm not a fan of Obama. And neither is Hazir at the moment.

    Can you tie that to the fact that we are gay Tear? Are we racist?
    That's not disagreeing, that's trolling. Gay? Really?

    Dread has gotten more conservative as he's gotten older and into the real world of having a job...roughly around the same time Obama came on the scene in a serious way. I'm gonna go with Occam's Razor on that one....he got a real paycheck, looked at his tax burden...and a fiscal conservative was born Big O becomes the (D) Poster Boy, thus gets the spurn from Dread.
    Yes, I've thought of that. But that doesn't account for the stridency. They really do hate Obama more than Lewk does. Compare them to, say, Rand, who is roughly comparable fiscally.

    Oh, and just because this isn't the first time you posted this theory does not make is a correct theory...
    Agreed.

    I don't think you will find anyone agreeing with it. (Not that consensus would make it incorrect, but it may mean that you might want to check your math)
    Maybe not. But I really don't entertain many doubts re: Loki when it comes to Israel issues. He tries to hide his rabidness, but he's accused enough people of being anti-semites over the years that it's a tiny step to recognizing his hatred of Obama as being driven by a similar fear. Dread, as in most things, is less extreme than Loki but not really all that different.

  22. #22
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    That's not disagreeing, that's trolling. Gay? Really?
    It's an example of absurd reasoning. Hazir flipped his disco over DADT. And on this social issue I agree with him. I can add 1+1 and get Obama hates gays cause he's black.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    It's an example of absurd reasoning. Hazir flipped his disco over DADT. And on this social issue I agree with him. I can add 1+1 and get Obama hates gays cause he's black.
    Or that he feels there is no urgency to end blatant discrimination.

    Anybody not understanding the house nigger remark in that context is willfully misunderstanding it. It's got nothing to do with my bigotry but exposing the bigotry of people who think it's only discrimation if the victim is black.
    Congratulations America

  24. #24
    Don't be ridiculous. Your comment made no such point.

  25. #25

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    Don't be ridiculous. Your comment made no such point.
    Not, it merely lashed out at where a man who knows discrimination first hand should hurt most. To understand that he can't just sit on his backside and do nothing when people are discriminated. Especially when he has the power to do something to end it.

    The marriage of his parents was made possible by the courts, the fact that black people can serve in the military was made possible by an executive order. Yet he insists only Congress shall end the discrimination of gays.
    Congratulations America

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Not, it merely lashed out at where a man who knows discrimination first hand should hurt most. To understand that he can't just sit on his backside and do nothing when people are discriminated. Especially when he has the power to do something to end it.

    The marriage of his parents was made possible by the courts, the fact that black people can serve in the military was made possible by an executive order. Yet he insists only Congress shall end the discrimination of gays.
    Then draw the parsimonious conclusion, which is that Obama is a political animal unwilling to be bold and lead, but rather passes the buck on political responsibility. Using "house n*****" to describe him is beyond the pale. Just by being willing to use that term, you brand yourself a racist.

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    Then draw the parsimonious conclusion, which is that Obama is a political animal unwilling to be bold and lead, but rather passes the buck on political responsibility. Using "house n*****" to describe him is beyond the pale. Just by being willing to use that term, you brand yourself a racist.
    Couldn't care less condering the insult is dished out by somebody defending who is in his acts acting like the next bigot.
    Congratulations America

  29. #29
    Not really. Accusing somebody of potential racism is not in and of itself racist. Granted, Dread has tried to call it racist in an effort to defend himself.

    So no, I have no concerns on that score about myself. But you, sir, are a bigot.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •