T1B

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:Abe Lincoln would have lost in this day and age.

You're a fucking idiot...not that that comes as any great surprise.

Lincoln was one of the nasiest, bareknuckle political brawlers in our history. He would filet Karl Rove, leave him gagging on his own choad and manage to appear folksy and homespun while doing so.

Looks like John Kerry to me.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:Abe Lincoln would have lost in this day and age.

You're a fucking idiot...not that that comes as any great surprise.

Lincoln was one of the nasiest, bareknuckle political brawlers in our history.

He would filet Karl Rove, leave him gagging on his own choad and manage to appear folksy and homespun while doing so.

1. Abe Lincoln's election in 1860 was hardly a fait accompli. He benefitted greatly from the Democratic Party splitting that year over the issue of slavery. Without that split, he probably would have lost. Remember, he previously lost to Douglas, his primary opponent in 1860, for Illinois' Senate seat.

2. Certain details of Lincoln's personal life today would be significant fodder for Rove: his wife's mental health, and his bankruptcy prior to becoming President. Granted, neither bankruptcy nor mental health issues carry the stigma that they carried back then. But even today, bankruptcy is probably a disqualifier for the Presidency, and such profound mental health issues in one's spouse may very well be also. Not to mention that there's a much greater chance that the media would report on those today than was the case in 1860.

Cuda wrote:looks like Babshice's neighbors have come up with a solution of their own...

They only put that sign up after I took a shit in their front yard.

But hey, their dog started it.....

Tom In VA wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:Bush shared his

"Hezbollah has got to stop this shit"

Awesome.diplomatic.effort.

Oh Christ, just rack him for his candor.

Concur. Rack Bushice.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:Abe Lincoln would have lost in this day and age.

You're a fucking idiot...not that that comes as any great surprise.

Lincoln was one of the nasiest, bareknuckle political brawlers in our history.

He would filet Karl Rove, leave him gagging on his own choad and manage to appear folksy and homespun while doing so.

1. Abe Lincoln's election in 1860 was hardly a fait accompli. He benefitted greatly from the Democratic Party splitting that year over the issue of slavery. Without that split, he probably would have lost. Remember, he previously lost to Douglas, his primary opponent in 1860, for Illinois' Senate seat.

2. Certain details of Lincoln's personal life today would be significant fodder for Rove: his wife's mental health, and his bankruptcy prior to becoming President. Granted, neither bankruptcy nor mental health issues carry the stigma that they carried back then. But even today, bankruptcy is probably a disqualifier for the Presidency, and such profound mental health issues in one's spouse may very well be also. Not to mention that there's a much greater chance that the media would report on those today than was the case in 1860.

And let us not forget that Lincoln's speaking voice was hardly reputed to be a thing of beauty. To say the least, he was not made for TV.

BSmack wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

mvscal wrote: You're a fucking idiot...not that that comes as any great surprise.

Lincoln was one of the nasiest, bareknuckle political brawlers in our history.

He would filet Karl Rove, leave him gagging on his own choad and manage to appear folksy and homespun while doing so.

1. Abe Lincoln's election in 1860 was hardly a fait accompli. He benefitted greatly from the Democratic Party splitting that year over the issue of slavery. Without that split, he probably would have lost. Remember, he previously lost to Douglas, his primary opponent in 1860, for Illinois' Senate seat.

2. Certain details of Lincoln's personal life today would be significant fodder for Rove: his wife's mental health, and his bankruptcy prior to becoming President. Granted, neither bankruptcy nor mental health issues carry the stigma that they carried back then. But even today, bankruptcy is probably a disqualifier for the Presidency, and such profound mental health issues in one's spouse may very well be also. Not to mention that there's a much greater chance that the media would report on those today than was the case in 1860.

And let us not forget that Lincoln's speaking voice was hardly reputed to be a thing of beauty. To say the least, he was not made for TV.

True. Most people in this day and age would say that he was too ugly to be President.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

BSmack wrote: And let us not forget that Lincoln's speaking voice was hardly reputed to be a thing of beauty. To say the least, he was not made for TV.

True. Most shallow, Democratic morons in this day and age would say that he was too ugly to be President.

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what a President looks like. Obviously, there are plenty of other voters out there who disagree.

mvscal wrote:True. Most shallow, Democratic morons in this day and age would say that he was too ugly to be President.

There's a difference between being flat out ugly and not being telegenic. Lincoln, with a face that looked like it had been caved in by one of Hacksaw Jim Duggan's 2x4s, and a voice that has been reported by even his political allies as being shrill, would not have translated well to TV or even radio.

mvscal wrote:You do realise that you are one of the shallow, Democratic morons I referenced, don't you?

Recognizing reality is not the same as being shallow. The failed campaigns of Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer out front should have told you that.

mvscal wrote:You do realise that you are one of the shallow, Democratic morons I referenced, don't you?

So all you got on this is namecalling? Gotcha.

And certainly, this phenomenon doesn't begin and end with Lincoln. Candidates for President today are placed under a microscope like never before. There are plenty of Presidents whose elections would have been questionable, at best, were they running today:

• Most people didn't know that FDR was paralyzed. The media never photographed him unless he was seated behind a desk, or already in a standing position and braced against some object (a podium, e.g.).
• Truman, like Lincoln, filed bankruptcy before becoming President.
• The media never reported JFK's philandering (which made Clinton's look strictly minor league by comparison), or his myriad of health problems.
• Some historians believe Jefferson fathered at least one child by a female slave. That one is difficult to translate to modern day for obvious reasons, but I have no doubt that had those allegations been made public, they would have been extremely scandalous at the time, possibly enough to derail any Presidential bid by him.

Geez, considering this list, and comparing them against the unimpressive bunch who have been elected under stricter scrutiny in more recent times, perhaps now we're missing the forest for the trees. Just sayin'.

mvscal wrote:You said it was "obvious" that an ugly man couldn't be elected President.

No he didn't. He said it was obvious that there are voters out there who care about appearance when it comes to their Presidential candidates.

mvscal wrote:You do realise that you are one of the shallow, Democratic morons I referenced, don't you?

Not sure that's always true. On an average day of getting plungered, BSmack ain't all that shallow.

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:You said it was "obvious" that an ugly man couldn't be elected President.

No he didn't. He said it was obvious that there are voters out there who care about appearance when it comes to their Presidential candidates.

Exactly. I think RF had it right earlier on. Mvscal seems to be stuck on stupid today. Either that, or he's spinning to an extent even he can't possibly believe.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:You said it was "obvious" that an ugly man couldn't be elected President.

No he didn't. He said it was obvious that there are voters out there who care about appearance when it comes to their Presidential candidates.

Shut the fuck up, idiot.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:True. Most people in this day and age would say that he was too ugly to be President.

You KYOA by mixing in the "obvious" reference, which happened in a different post:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what a President looks like. Obviously, there are plenty of other voters out there who disagree.

mvscal wrote:It doesn't matter that you said in a different post, dumbfuck. You said it. Period EOS.

Game over, bitch.

I said something completely different than what you're trying to spin.

mvscal wrote:This is a fair and accurate summary of your position:

"You said it was "obvious" that an ugly man couldn't be elected President."

Hardly. I said two different things:

First, I said most (my bad, should have said many) people today would say Lincoln was too ugly to be President.

Then, I said many voters obviously (the only time where that word surfaced) disagree with my take that a Presidential candidate's looks are irrelevant.

And that's hardly consigned to Democrats, btw. You weren't around SCIII in '00, IIRC, but being a Bradley backer, I got a lot of "ugly" smack thrown at my candidate. Not to mention all of the "ugly" smack that's been thrown at Bradley's wife, and also Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore, Elizabeth Edwards, Teresa Heinz Kerry, etc. Granted, none of them other than Hillary has ever been a candidate for anything, but caring about a candidate's wife's looks is every bit as shallow as caring about the candidate's appearance.

Not to mention hypocritical as well, given that it came from backers of the Party of Barbara Bush. But that's a topic for another thread.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

mvscal wrote:This is a fair and accurate summary of your position:

"You said it was "obvious" that an ugly man couldn't be elected President."

Hardly. I said two different things:

First, I said most (my bad, should have said many) people today would say Lincoln was too ugly to be President.

Then, I said many voters obviously (the only time where that word surfaced) disagree with my take that a Presidential candidate's looks are irrelevant.

And that's hardly consigned to Democrats, btw. You weren't around SCIII in '00, IIRC, but being a Bradley backer, I got a lot of "ugly" smack thrown at my candidate. Not to mention all of the "ugly" smack that's been thrown at Bradley's wife, and also Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore, Elizabeth Edwards, Teresa Heinz Kerry, etc. Granted, none of them other than Hillary has ever been a candidate for anything, but caring about a candidate's wife's looks is every bit as shallow as caring about the candidate's appearance.

Not to mention hypocritical as well, given that it came from backers of the Party of Barbara Bush. But that's a topic for another thread.

Game, set, match.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
And certainly, this phenomenon doesn't begin and end with Lincoln. Candidates for President today are placed under a microscope like never before. There are plenty of Presidents whose elections would have been questionable, at best, were they running today:

• Most people didn't know that FDR was paralyzed. The media never photographed him unless he was seated behind a desk, or already in a standing position and braced against some object (a podium, e.g.).
• Truman, like Lincoln, filed bankruptcy before becoming President.
• The media never reported JFK's philandering (which made Clinton's look strictly minor league by comparison), or his myriad of health problems.
• Some historians believe Jefferson fathered at least one child by a female slave. That one is difficult to translate to modern day for obvious reasons, but I have no doubt that had those allegations been made public, they would have been extremely scandalous at the time, possibly enough to derail any Presidential bid by him.

Geez, considering this list, and comparing them against the unimpressive bunch who have been elected under stricter scrutiny in more recent times, perhaps now we're missing the forest for the trees. Just sayin'.

Nice bullet points.

Canada elected a PM back in the 1970's who
spoke with a lisp
(Lester Pearson--look it up)
--
that could never happen here--
we have some folks who get all
worked up with a POTUS who
mispronounces nuclear !!

Fuckin' epic thread - really, REALLY good stuff.
Ugly? Prove it? JFK v Nixon TV debate. Looking shifty DOES equal being ugly.
Canadian points are interesting. They've just gone Conservative after 12 years of Liberal Govt.
GB will go Conservative next time round.
Isn't France Fucked (when isn't it?) due to Socialist lets-go-broke-right-now policies? Right of centre next time
Italy - screwed, now right of centre since Bertusconi (?) was nabbed.

I think that US will be sick of Bush, and the Dems. have to come up with a way to bring people's attention TO social issues in order to get in.
Don't we all mistrust them, though?

Sorry, I'm late here, but I'm a Fuckin' Noobie

RACK you all.

The phantorino wrote:Isn't France Fucked (when isn't it?) due to Socialist lets-go-broke-right-now policies?

Yes. France sucks. Also, America needs to support its troops by throwing another trillion at Iraq. We aren't going broke with our policies so long as China extends our credit.

Or another Katrina fucks up a major city. I think Houston's next on God's smack list

Sin
Pat Robertson