| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: TH: Michelle Obama rants against WHITEY? |
Topic: TH: Michelle Obama rants against WHITEY?
| Author | Message |
| chucho | Posted – 6/17/2008 6:53:50 AM | show profile Seems like John McCain calling his wife a cunt has more legs than the whitey "tape". (Wouldn't it be on DVD or something, a digital recording? Who says "tape" anymore?) So let's see: Women makeup 50% of the population of human beings. Calling a woman a "cunt" is the moral equivalent of calling a black person a "nigger". ERGO (By Guy's partisan reasoning): John McCain is a mysogynist who has slandered half the people in the world by calling his wife a "cunt". If in fact he did call his wife a cunt. In which a number of reporter have gon on the rcord saying he did. ERGO: The rumor John McCain called his wife a cunt has more legs than the rumor of a "whitey tape" where nobody has gone on the record saying it exists. ERGO: Guy should be more concerned about John McCain being a misogynist than if the wife of the other candidate once used the word "whitey". You're welcome. |
| Suet | Posted – 6/17/2008 3:20:07 PM | show profile guyarthomas, Liberals don't call themselves "libs". Only hateful conservatives, such as leading radio talk hosts Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, call liberals "libs". |
| byword | Posted – 6/17/2008 7:50:29 PM | show profile Adding it up I only skimmed a few posts, but the earlier comment by Chucko holds true: journalist-types do not regurgitate stories from random blogs. Four random blogs do not make 4 good sources, btw. Furthermore, Guyarthurthomas obviously is a conservative who hates "LIBERALS," especially "arrogent liberals." That is okay; it is the Internet, but that he tries to deny that is wierd. So in conclusion, this poster and www.noquarterusa.net (his source) are a waste of time. Probably not a journalist either, maybe a Fox News hound, or a delivery guy, pizza. Outta here. |
| Guyarthurthomas | Posted – 6/18/2008 8:44:42 PM | show profile Suet Posted ? 6/17/2008 3:20:07 PM | show profile guyarthomas, Liberals don't call themselves "libs". Only hateful conservatives, such as leading radio talk hosts Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, call liberals "libs". ___________________________________________ Suet, conservatives don't call Rush Limbaugh and Levin "hateful". |
| chucho | Posted – 6/19/2008 9:45:37 AM | show profile They shouldn't be calling themselves conservative, either, because they don't actually ascribe to conservative values. For example, the "deficits don't matter" attitude of conservatives; their rejection of green, sustainable policies as "eco-nazi" propaganda (never mind that conservation is a plain, common-sense conservative value); their desire to see the government prevent women form having abortions (talk about "big government"), their support for farm subsidies that -- contrary to the "American Gothic" stereotype -- go to big corporate growing operations (talk about welfare and government handouts); their tendency to view crass consumerism and cars that get 15 miles to the gallon as tantamount to an individual freedom and a human right (thus extending a highly "liberal" interpretation of the meaning of these concepts); their support for a poorly planned un-conservative-by-nature trillion-dollar nation-building project in Iraq; their beleif that the cure to economic woes is to give money to people so they can buy shoes at the mall as a staid economic policy (rather than encouraging the conservative value of saving rather than spending). This list can go on and on. Frankly, I only use the word "conservative" to describe these people because others will know what I am saying. I prefer the more apt description of "social Darwinist" or "radical libertarian" or "lunatic fringe" or whatevs. The kind of people who will accuse liberals of being intolerant while supporting taking away a woman's right to choose because of their own intolerance for other views on human life. Perhaps the best description is "flaming hypocrites". |
| Guyarthurthomas | Posted – 6/19/2008 9:26:33 PM | show profile chucho chucho, I see your Dummycrat Lib talking points memo is all you have time to read these days...but at least you know how to copy and paste. P.S. Yes Eco-Nazis are what you libs love. Do as I say, not as I do. You're all full of excuses why you don't by the doctrines you claim are best. Hahahahahaha, Next Please! |
| byword | Posted – 6/28/2008 1:08:44 PM | show profile A Case Study: Conservatives and Words I wonder if it is possible for a "conservative" these days to be a good journalist? Maybe Fox News is their best attempt at journalism, not just a way to undermine democracy with fake news and rehashed talking points.+ For instance, liberals often do regard and call Limbaugh and those much like him "hateful." This poster just can't be honest, about his own conservatism or what other people normally say and do. To be "hateful" can mean both to be full of hate and to inspire hate, though "odious" is the precise word for inspiring hate. That Limbaugh is "hateful" (full of hate) seems factual, though I really have only sampled him one or twice almost a decade ago, so I could be wrong. Certainly O'Reilly is hateful (full of hate). Anyway, conservative posters, bloggers, news hounds, and politicians simply cannot be trusted, because (as this poster shows above) they are delusional with themselves, and with others fundamentally rhetorical in their utterances. |
| chucho | Posted – 6/28/2008 1:46:52 PM | show profile First of all: there's nothing particularly "conservative" about screwing up your hearing because for years you were sending your maid out to illegally shop for prescription narcotics, like Rush Limbaugh did. There's also nothing conservative about running up history's largest fiscal deficit, or giving so much power to the executive branch as all these so-called conservatives have done. Also, if you go by the dictionary definition of "liberal", then a good journalist will be one who is liberal because, according to the dictionary definition of liberal (rather than Guy's completely moronic "eco-Nazi" definition/cliche cribbed from Lucianne.com or whatever other peanut gallery) a journalist is supposed to question authority, be open to myriad angles to a story, and seek out dissenting or unheard voices. A conservative defers unquestionably to authority (if I had a cookie for each time how many times have I heard "well, Bush knows more about terrorists than you do, so I trust him on the war on terror" from some self-proclaimed conservative moralist I'd be as fat as a Mississippi redneck), a conservative doesn't seek out dissenting opinions, etc., etc. I think it's a relatively sound argument. And instead of liberals constantly defending against these manufactured insults, they should embrace them. It's good to be liberal, and our liberal Western democracy (and the liberal Christian faith in relation to its less-liberal Abrahamic cousins, like Islam) is better off because we had liberal Western democratic institutions put in place by liberal founding fathers who did things like push for greater participation of the general public (starting with white male landowners, which was better than the precursor, but not as good as the further liberalization of our society that gave black people and women the right to also participate, thanks to liberal ideology questioning white, paternal authority.) So my point is simple: conservative media tends to be less willing to question authority (most especially ideologically aligned authority), and on that basis alone it makes for bad media. And, yes, I am also sick of liberals who adopt the same tactics or pander to these "conservatives". Stand up, be proud. People like Guy are on the losing side of history, right there with Islamic mullahs that want to impose themselves on the greater society. Seriously, let's just take the abortion issue and move up from there. Which side of the abortion issue is on the "better side" of history. Then ask yourself if a liberal or a "conservative" is more or less likely to be for or against abortion. Then you can move on from there. The equation will get to to my point: liberalism is good. It's good for America, democracy, human rights, and the environment. Another thing: you can piss on the "conservative's" platitudes. When they come up with that talking point that liberals are intolerant or hateful, I just say to them that NOT confronting THEIR intolerance is to appease it. My tolerance ends where their intolerance begins. Telling me that I have to shut up in order to prove my "tolerance" is simply out of the question. deal with it. |
| Guyarthurthomas | Posted – 6/29/2008 9:07:01 AM | show profile byword Posted ? 6/28/2008 1:08:44 PM | show profile A Case Study: Conservatives and Words I wonder if it is possible for a "conservative" these days to be a good journalist? ...... Anyway, conservative posters, bloggers, news hounds, and politicians simply cannot be trusted, because _______________________________________________ Said by a fool who watches MSNBC, Keith Goobermann and Katie Couric and pretends they are objective and certainly void of any liberal bias. Idiot....Next please! |
| Guyarthurthomas | Posted – 6/29/2008 9:13:36 AM | show profile chucho Posted ? 6/28/2008 1:46:52 PM | show profile a journalist is supposed to question authority, be open to myriad angles to a story, and seek out dissenting or unheard voices. _______________________________________________ Tell me again chucho, which of the MsM/oM (for you kindergarteners that means Mainstream Media and old Media) seek out dissenting or unheard voices regarding The Obamanation? Hmmmm....? I'm sorry, I can't hear you above all the worship songs being sung by the MsM/oM for The Obamanation while dissenting voices and those pointing out his INNUMERABLE contradictions from his conception in Selma (a lie) to his life of lies, are being UNHEARD in the MsM/oM. You libs are a joke....Next please! |
| Stanley_Milgram | Posted – 6/29/2008 12:11:21 PM | show profile again, i don't see why you bother, chucho. if you want to create progressive social change, just do it. Support Obama, ride a bike, circulate petitions, whatever you think will do the most good. It's a waste trying to point out the "errors" of lone nut posters -- they merely sap energy that could be better used doing something that will have impact. I mean, how many people do you think are stupid enough to be influenced by this Michelle Obama crap (except those that are just looking for a reason to hate a candidate they're disposed toward hating anyway) or anything else our resident idiot posts? If you don't dignify fools and their nonsense with a response, then they will be left doing what they do best -- masturbating to fantasies of their own brilliance. |
| Guyarthurthomas | Posted – 6/29/2008 2:37:49 PM | show profile Stanley_Milgram Posted ? 6/29/2008 12:11:21 PM | show profile again, i don't see why you bother, chucho. if you want to create progressive social change, just do it. Support Obama, ride a bike, circulate petitions, whatever you think will do the most good. It's a waste trying to point out the "errors" of lone nut posters _______________________________________________ Yeah chucho, do as Stanley SAYS not as he does. You see? That's the lib way. Here we have Stanley the Lib chiding you NOT to come here and WASTE time but to go DO something like ride a bike (hahahahahahahaha whatever) but by all means don't WASTE TIME HERE pointing out the errors of others. Of course Stanley the Lib doesn't want you to notice the fact that HE is HERE pointing out YOUR error of pointing out MY error. No, Stanley the Lib isn't wasting time being here chiding you chucho, only YOU are the one wasting time, but not Stanley the Lib, he gets a special exemption...hahahahahaha You libs never learn but the again Owl Gore the hypocrite is your leader. Next please! |
| Stanley_Milgram | Posted – 6/29/2008 5:57:07 PM | show profile See? Now all you have to do is dodge the splooge. |
| chucho | Posted – 6/30/2008 5:12:27 AM | show profile >> Tell me again chucho, which of the MsM/oM (for you kindergarteners that means Mainstream Media and old Media) seek out dissenting or unheard voices regarding The Obamanation? Hmmmm....? << Well, the first thing that comes to mind is the New York Times, which endorsed Clinton and specifically expressed doubts about Obama's experience. In fact, while you were mired in spending WAY too much time fretting over Olberman these past few month, some of us actually turned off the cable news idiot box and actually explored what was out there. Anyone paying attention and actually being curious (rather than being spoon fed fake controversy from your boob tube) found plenty to learn about Obama, his pluses and minuses. What I've learned form the media is more than enough for me to have already loked past Obama's victory, and I look forward to sharpening my knives and not doing what you conservatives have done for the past eight years: blindly defending the indefensible. The first time Obama shows his true Hawkish, neo-liberal colors be sure that my liberal ass is going to try to be the first to call it out and criticize him. PS: The hippielibriljewyhomocommie New York Times has pointed out Obama's weaknesses and Krugman still says Obama isn't the best choice. And there has certainly been a great deal about the media's overt preference to Obama, which I would venture to guess is part of the issue, hmmmm? Again, Guy, you're on the losing side of history if you align yourself with pro-lifers. We can start form there and move up as I continue to emphasize the benefits to our Western democracy that liberalism has provided this country. So go vote for McCain and all he represents. It's a free country. |
