T1B

And why would you think that...

...Obama might suspend Habeus Corpus to jail and intimidate anyone who criticizes him, his policies, and his past.

?


Do you really think that he would do that, or were you just being cheeky?

Because if people are really thinking this, then we've got a definite problem.

Never mind that Bush really did try to suspend habeus corpus, I'm just wondering what in Obama's past or present would make you think that he even might?
Personally, McCain seems more like the type of personality who might consider something like that.

Mikey wrote: Do you really think that he would do that, or were you just being cheeky?

C'mon Mikey, do I have to be serious ALL THE TIME ?

Do I think Obama will suspend Habeous Corpus in order to go after his critics ? No.

Do I think he might do it OR limit it as a President of the United States seeing fit to do so in order to fullfill his oath of office - Like Lincoln, FDR, and Bill Clinton, and George Bush have -

He might. I don't know, I don't have a crystal ball.

But with respect to silencing and punishing people critical of him and his policies - he has you, Felix, BSmack, the mainstream press and all to handle the rabble rousers and marginalize them and their opinions. All you have to do is cry - "RACIST". No court or due process is necessary to ostracize people.

I never accused anybody of being a racist for not favoring Obama. I don't think I recall Felix or Bri doing that either.

To me this whole racist thing is another symptom of the conservative persecution complex.

They hate us because we're Christians.
The whole mainstream press is liberal.
Academia is all a bunch of commie liberals.
They say we're racists because we don't vote for Obama.
Blah, blah, blah.

All bullshit.

Are there people racists who won't vote for Obama because he's black?

Certainly.

Is everybody who doesn't favor Obama a racist.
Of course not.

But it sure makes the right wing whackos feel better to accuse liberals of making that claim.

You don't think that conservatives have done a pretty good job of marginalizing people who disagree with them by calling them Socialists, or un-American?

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:But it sure makes the right wing whackos feel better to accuse liberals of making that claim.

Thanks for confirming the fact that your head is up your ass, but it really wasn't necessary.

Thought you were proud of being a racist.

Pretty funny, too, about how you're already crying about your civil rights being abused even before the election.
What a fucking pussy.

Tom In VA wrote:
Then Marty rushes in to laud the destruction of America.

Science damn you, Tom! Don't put words in my mouth!

I swear upon the Periodic Table Of Elements, I won't be made to look the fool!

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:

...Obama might suspend Habeus Corpus to jail and intimidate anyone who criticizes him, his policies, and his past.

?


Do you really think that he would do that, or were you just being cheeky?

Jail? Probably not. Intimidate and silence? You fucking bet he will.

Thanks for setting me straight. I'm with you now, bro.

People of Conscience Unite!!

Brother mvscal is being intimidated into silence by the evil Socialist Obama.

We must stand behind our brother and fight the power.

We sill NOT be silenced by this candidate. We shall overcome.

Power to the people. Right On!!!

Mikey wrote: Thanks for setting me straight. I'm with you now, bro.

People of Conscience Unite!!

Brother mvscal is being intimidated into silence by the evil Socialist Obama.

We must stand behind our brother and fight the power.

We sill NOT be silenced by this candidate. We shall overcome.

Power to the people. Right On!!!

Pipe down, rabble. The "protest cages" are right over there...

Don't make me get out the water cannon...

Martyred wrote: I swear upon the Periodic Table Of Elements

:o

I"m sorry my brother in Science. To make you go that far. May I atone by sending you a replica of the Holy Bunsen Burner ? I'll throw in a Holy Card of Louis Pastuer too.

Martyred wrote:

Mikey wrote: Thanks for setting me straight. I'm with you now, bro.

People of Conscience Unite!!

Brother mvscal is being intimidated into silence by the evil Socialist Obama.

We must stand behind our brother and fight the power.

We sill NOT be silenced by this candidate. We shall overcome.

Power to the people. Right On!!!

Pipe down, rabble. The "protest cages" are right over there...

Don't make me get out the water cannon...

You're welcome to join us if you wish.
If not then please just get out of the way.
We don't want to hurt anybody, but you're either with us or against us.

This intimidation and silencing of good conservative Americans like mvscal, from small towns like Mission Viejo in the patriotic heartland, by Obama and his jack-booted un-American Democrat henchmen has got to stop. We'll march all the way to...uh...Washington if we have to, to confront the Hawindomuslimasian ursurper.

That's where he is right?

OK well maybe in January.

Mikey wrote: To me this whole racist thing is another symptom of the conservative persecution complex.

Conservatives, persecuted?

We'll do the fuckin' persecuting around here, fella'.

Oh sure, you'll win the occasional election or two, but let's get this straight. Liberal, left wing, all inclusive douchebags couldn't persecute, or prosecute, a child molester who sexually abused their own child. They'd be too busy trying to rationalize such behavior as somehow being acceptable.

Liberals believe that Gay marriage and abortion on demand is acceptable, so while the above may be hyperbole, is it really?

So enjoy this moment in the sun, you slimy worms. Soon enough you'll be crawling back under the rock from whence you came when America realizes to their horror what reprobates they put in charge of God's country.

War Wagon wrote: Conservatives, persecuted?

We'll do the fuckin' persecuting around here, fella'.

Yea, that's pretty much a given. You know in God's name and all; so it's OK.

War Wagon wrote:Liberal, left wing, all inclusive douchebags couldn't persecute, or prosecute, a child molester who sexually abused their own child. They'd be too busy trying to rationalize such behavior as somehow being acceptable.

YEEEE FUCKIN HAAAAAA

Preach on brother! Like when FDR throwed them Japs into them camps during WWII, and then went out and forced the majority of the US marketplace to support the war. What a liberal fuckin' pussy that guy was. He should a just shot them slanty eyed infiltrators.

And what about that Kennedy pussy? Don't it make your blood boil that he went to the very edge of nuclear war with the commies?

Aint none a them as good as Reagan, what wouldn't even nee-go-shee-ate with no terrorist NEVER, no sir-ee! And he still got them fellers outa I-ran, cause he was a big movie star and not senile yet! Plus, we was fixin to leave Lebanon anyway...damn rag-heads! Even them commie pussy liberals got to admit we showed em there.

War Wagon wrote:Liberals believe that Gay marriage and abortion on demand is acceptable, so while the above may be hyperbole, is it really?

That's a pretty cool super power you got there War W. You can devine what them liberal pussies believe? All of em?

War Wagon wrote:So enjoy this moment in the sun, you slimy worms. Soon enough you'll be crawling back under the rock from whence you came when America realizes to their horror what reprobates they put in charge of God's country.

That's right you heathens, cause perty soon God may realize that he likes some of them fancy words in that there bill of rights, besides the Second Am. And when he does, by golly you can bet your best shooter, me and War W'll be there tellin all you fancy pants about how that Muslim bastard is spyin on good honest American Folk, and how that's wrong!

Mikey wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:?


Do you really think that he would do that, or were you just being cheeky?

Jail? Probably not. Intimidate and silence? You fucking bet he will.

Thanks for setting me straight. I'm with you now, bro.

People of Conscience Unite!!

Brother mvscal is being intimidated into silence by the evil Socialist Obama.

We must stand behind our brother and fight the power.

We sill NOT be silenced by this candidate. We shall overcome.

Power to the people. Right On!!!

Lemme see if I've got this straight.

Mvscal, he of the 19,000+ posts, is concerned about being silenced? And what's more, he's afraid of being silenced by Barack Obama, the very same person as to whom he has spent virtually all of the past four months and change trying to convince us is incompetent?

Sorry, can't stop laughing at the paranoia.

l to r: mvscal

"Just stop INTIMIDATING us!!!"

Mikey, let's try to look at this objectively. I'll take my conservative hat off and you can take your lib hat off for a second. Let's just pretend we're reasonable people for a second.

You see when the media can basically "lynch" black politicians when they happen to be Republicans or conservative. When people get away with and lauded for throwing Oreo cookies at an authentic black American like Michael Steele, be called "Uncle Tom" and "Sambo", and yet we cannot even ask simple questions about Obama ...

When the press - appears to be AFRAID - to give Obama the same treatment they'd give any other swinging richarch or split-tail sally running for office ....

What would you call it ?

It appears as if they are intimidated and are cowering.

That's the kind of intimidation we're talking about. If they are not "intimidated" then they are "in the tank" which speaks to another problem.

So which is it ?

Tom In VA wrote:Mikey, let's try to look at this objectively. I'll take my conservative hat off and you can take your lib hat off for a second. Let's just pretend we're reasonable people for a second.

That would have been so much more believable had you not immediately launched into a series of Republican talking points.

There have been thousands of questions asked about Obama, from the pertinent to the ridiculous. The difference between this election and 2004 is that when Republicans ask stupid questions they're getting their lunch handed to them. Deal with it.

I don't see you taking your "conservative hat" off here:

You see when the media can basically "lynch" black politicians when they happen to be Republicans or conservative. When people get away with and lauded for throwing Oreo cookies at an authentic black American like Michael Steele, be called "Uncle Tom" and "Sambo", and yet we cannot even ask simple questions about Obama ...

1. I don't recall any black politicians being "lyched" (quotations or otherwise) because they happen to be Republicans or conservative. Who in the "mainstream" ever called Michael Steele either of those names? Some fringe morons may have called him that, but then there have been plenty of conservatives on the opposite fringe throwing equally deplorable epithets at Obama.

2. Who says that "we cannot even ask simple questions about Obama"? Have you been intimidated like mvscal has? Who has been "silenced", and how? Those questions have been asked and, IMO, answered. Just because you and others refuse to accept the answers doesn't mean that the questions haven't been asked.

You really need to get over the persecution complex.

mvscal wrote: I'm not sure what that has to do with your assertion that many libtards are not running around and painting opposition to Onogger as racist.

I pay them as much heed as I do idiots like you that wear their disdain on their sleeves for somebody that's not a particular color that they like...

by constantly referencing them you give them power....ignore them and they're pretty much just a waste of oxygen...see, problem solved

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Felix wrote:...he's going to be landslided no matter how much you insist that the election is still up for grabs

What has become the "poll of record" here shows the race tightening.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111568/Gallu ... ghtly.aspx

A 2 point lead isn't going get it done, spankshot.

Nice try. Too bad for you the traditional likely voter model is completely outdated. Even Gallup recognizes that fact by including an expanded likely voter model in their polling. You know, the one that shows Obama leading by 7 points. Oh, and how about the Pew poll that shows Obama leading by 19 points amongst voters who have already voted? How do you explain that away?

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/465.pdf

yep, those exit polls never lie......

titlover wrote:

yep, those exit polls never lie......

then I guess we'd better prepare ourselves for a McCain presidency

I'm guessing that somehow he'll be able to make HIS "trickle-down" economic plan work....after all it's siginificantly the same different from what's been tried (and failed) before

Felix wrote:

titlover wrote:

yep, those exit polls never lie......

then I guess we'd better prepare ourselves for a McCain presidency

I'm guessing that somehow he'll be able to make HIS "trickle-down" economic plan work....after all it's siginificantly the same different from what's been tried (and failed) before

At McCain's age "trickle down" more likely refers to a completely different issue.

Mikey wrote:

At McCain's age "trickle down" more likely refers to a completely different issue.

why do you hate trickle-down

Felix wrote:

Mikey wrote:

At McCain's age "trickle down" more likely refers to a completely different issue.

why do you hate trickle-down

Because I don't normally keep an extra pair of pants at work.

Now stop INTIMIDATING me!!

Tom In VA wrote:Let's just pretend we're reasonable people for a second.

I laughed.

Mikey wrote:I don't see you taking your "conservative hat" off here:

Tell me what I can do to satisfy your perception that is it off. I was merely pointing out examples that I've witnessed in my adult life. Michael Steele and Clarence Thomas are some of the most egregious examples. There are more but as with Steele probably isolated to localities. The Thomas situation was the only national one I can think of. I am sorry I do not have anything other than "conservative" black politicians as examples but that is kind of the point I'm trying to discuss with you.

I don't have a persecution complex Mikey. It really is as plain as day, to the point that many left leaners are even commenting about the bias in the mainstream.

So my question still stands. Is is because the media is intimidated or is it because they are "in the tank" for Obama ?

It really is one or the other.

BSmack wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Mikey, let's try to look at this objectively. I'll take my conservative hat off and you can take your lib hat off for a second. Let's just pretend we're reasonable people for a second.

That would have been so much more believable had you not immediately launched into a series of Republican talking points.

There have been thousands of questions asked about Obama, from the pertinent to the ridiculous. The difference between this election and 2004 is that when Republicans ask stupid questions they're getting their lunch handed to them. Deal with it.

Well, I'm trying. Unfortunately though, I'm not buying your explanation. Reaching "common ground" and "across the aisle" takes work, it doesn't take a day and there will be some painful moments. Sort of like "Change". All "Change" requires some amount of discomfort and pain. Deal with that after 9-23-2009. Obama's solution might just fail and poses incredible risk to the small / medium sized businesses and the economy in general according to some economists.

Has he addressed their concerns ?

Frankly, I think all politicians owe it to their employers to outline their plan of action and describe the potential risks associated with each. They all sell this shit like a used car salesman or snakeoil salesman. I call bullshit - on all of them now - when I am tasked with solving a technical problem, I need to write a complete synopsis of the problem, the solution(s) and the risks posed with each solution and let the customer decide what action to take. Sure I can make a recommendation but in the end the customer decides.

I think politicians should be held to account in a similiar fashion when asking for a persons vote. And none of them are.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Let's just pretend we're reasonable people for a second.

I laughed.

Wonderful news my jocund nemesis.

Tom In VA wrote:

Mikey wrote:I don't see you taking your "conservative hat" off here:

Tell me what I can do to satisfy your perception that is it off. I was merely pointing out examples that I've witnessed in my adult life. Michael Steele and Clarence Thomas are some of the most egregious examples. There are more but as with Steele probably isolated to localities. The Thomas situation was the only national one I can think of. I am sorry I do not have anything other than "conservative" black politicians as examples but that is kind of the point I'm trying to discuss with you.

I don't have a persecution complex Mikey. It really is as plain as day, to the point that many left leaners are even commenting about the bias in the mainstream.

So my question still stands. Is is because the media is intimidated or is it because they are "in the tank" for Obama ?

It really is one or the other.

It's funny how perceptions differ.

Your perception of Thomas is that he was "lynched" because he was black conservative. My perception is that he was legitimately criticized by liberals because of his lock-step conservative positions. Just as it would work the other way around if a lock-step liberal is nominated by a Democratic President.

The double standard is on the conservatives' side. Any legitimate questioning or criticism of a black conservative is automatically considered by them to be a "lynching". They for some reason think that any black nomination by them should be beyond question just because he's black and that any liberal criticism is somehow hypocritical.

Tom In VA wrote:

Mikey wrote:I don't see you taking your "conservative hat" off here:

Tell me what I can do to satisfy your perception that is it off. I was merely pointing out examples that I've witnessed in my adult life. Michael Steele and Clarence Thomas are some of the most egregious examples. There are more but as with Steele probably isolated to localities. The Thomas situation was the only national one I can think of. I am sorry I do not have anything other than "conservative" black politicians as examples but that is kind of the point I'm trying to discuss with you.

I don't have a persecution complex Mikey. It really is as plain as day, to the point that many left leaners are even commenting about the bias in the mainstream.

So my question still stands. Is is because the media is intimidated or is it because they are "in the tank" for Obama ?

Everyone likes to back a winner.

Mikey,

Fair enough. My perception is more influenced by the "victim's" perception, for instance Thomas.

Of the committee's investigation of the accusations, Thomas said: "This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."[

Clearly not an unbiased perception as he was put on the spot. But ....

But it seems we are at an impasse. Good talk.

Tom In VA wrote:
But it seems we are at an impasse. Good talk.

Something else we can agree on.

:wink:

Tom In VA wrote:Mikey,

Fair enough. My perception is more influenced by the "victim's" perception, for instance Thomas.

Of the committee's investigation of the accusations, Thomas said: "This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."[

Clearly not an unbiased perception as he was put on the spot. But ....

But it seems we are at an impasse. Good talk.

Some lynching that turned out to be. If they did lynchings like that in the old South, Emmett Till would have been given his choice of the best looking white women in Mississippi and Leo Frank would have been elected Governor of Georgia. That characterization by Thomas, much like his term on the Supreme Court, was a fucking joke.

BSmack wrote:That characterization by Thomas, much like his term on the Supreme Court, was a fucking joke.

With all due respect, I think Thomas is a better judge of that than you.

Tom In VA wrote:

BSmack wrote:That characterization by Thomas, much like his term on the Supreme Court, was a fucking joke.

With all due respect, I think Thomas is a better judge of that than you.

He was confirmed. He's on the Supreme Court. He's not dead.

By any stretch of the imagination "lynching" is pretty much of an reactionary overstatement of the process.

Mikey wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

BSmack wrote:That characterization by Thomas, much like his term on the Supreme Court, was a fucking joke.

With all due respect, I think Thomas is a better judge of that than you.

He was confirmed. He's on the Supreme Court. He's not dead.

By any stretch of the imagination "lynching" is pretty much of an reactionary overstatement of the process.

"Hi-tech lynching", "Political Assassination", we live in a country whose language is steeped in metaphor.

Splitting hairs is fine. Were the word "lynching" an overstatement, sure. As were the attacks on Thomas' credentials, character, and overall fitness for the job.

DNC operatives throwing Oreo cookies at Michael Steele in MD were - out of bounds, an overstatement.

In fact the constant attempts at hanging an undeserved albatross around the neck of the Republican party and conservative idealogies are gross overstatements.

Tom In VA wrote:

Mikey wrote:
He was confirmed. He's on the Supreme Court. He's not dead.

By any stretch of the imagination "lynching" is pretty much of an reactionary overstatement of the process.

"Hi-tech lynching", "Political Assassination", we live in a country whose language is steeped in metaphor.

Splitting hairs is fine. Were the word "lynching" an overstatement, sure. As were the attacks on Thomas' credentials, character, and overall fitness for the job.

DNC operatives throwing Oreo cookies at Michael Steele in MD were - out of bounds, an overstatement.

In fact the constant attempts at hanging an undeserved albatross around the neck of the Republican party and conservative idealogies are gross overstatements.

Then I guess you wouldn't have any problem with characterizing the McCain campaign's attacks on Obama's credentials, character and overall fitness for the job as a "lynching", or at least an overstatement?

If Obama tried to use the "lynching" description he'd most definitely be villified as a racist by the entire Repbulican party, and probably ostracized as well by his own.

And how about the constant attempts at hanging the undeserved albatross of Socialist, Marxist, un-American, anti-American, anti-Christian, un-Patriotic, terrorist and baby killers around the neck of the Democratic party and liberal idealogies. Are they not gross overstatements?

God and GOD this 3 quote embedding limit thing sucks.

Mikey wrote:And how about the constant attempts at hanging the undeserved albatross of Socialist, Marxist, un-American, anti-American, anti-Christian, un-Patriotic, terrorist and baby killers around the neck of the Democratic party and liberal idealogies. Are they not gross overstatements?

Sometimes. I"ll try and continue our reasonable dialog, if possible.

First:
When it comes to Obama. Calling him or asking him if he is a socialist is reasonable. The man's entire background is steeped in socialism, marxism, and his affiliation with terrorists is as yet - unexamined to the satisfaction of some.

Second:
As far as lumping all Dems in some of those categories, guilty as charged on occasion and out and out wrong on some of those occasions. At least I know I've been, in heated exchanges and what not. I will attempt to explain my perception and - meager excuses - as to why I slips up from time to time.

As for the "anti-american" and "un-patriotic". That's a way deep conversation. Some, view our involvement in anything since Woodrow Wilson and slightly before that as "anti-american" and against the Constitution. At this point it's too late, we're there, in the global scheme of things - in too deep perhaps. I wonder if the Republican politicized WWII, if I remember correctly, they tried to politicize the Korean War. Personally, I don't care what side of the aisle you're on, when soldiers are in harms way - suit up show up and exercise some discretion. But that's fantasy land I guess. When I throw out this card, it's usually frustration and ignorance. I try to "sack up" and suggest so when I am wrong. Overall I get flustered and don't know how to explain things like flying an NVA flag at protests during the Vietnam War. Some of that idealogy has apparently been adopted by some in the Democratic Party. That kind of goes up my ass. I reckon "anti-establishment" is the proper term. But the establishment isn't entirely owned by Republicans. Hell, I do admire G Gordon Liddy a little bit and he was pretty anti-establishment and I reckon when Obama is President and the congress is all Dem, he'll be more "anti-establishment".

Anti-Christian ? I woudn't mind it if it was "Pro Separation of Church and State". As opposed to the constant beratement of the Judeo Christian values and history from which this country was born. Lately, it's pretty trendy to be Muslim. Some religions seem to get a pass. I find that odd. How about we just cut the bullshit. Go to church/synagogue/mosque/buddhist temple/pagan blood sex orgy or what have you on your own time and your own dime. Run the country if that's what your career choice is and sing in the fucking choir after you do your job. I'm usually not one to throw that card. I don't care who you pray to or if you pray to anybody.

Baby Killers. Harsh words indeed.



Yin and Yang. I guess beating ourselves up from time to time makes for a whole complete circle.

Baby Killers. Harsh words indeed.
A harsher act indeed !!

Tom In VA wrote: As opposed to the constant beratement of the Judeo Christian values and history from which this country was born.

It's mostly the Judeo's berating the Christians.

Have a look at the names on the Board Of Directors of the ACLU. Schindler's List Redux.

Tom In VA wrote:Hell, I do admire G Gordon Liddy a little bit and he was pretty anti-establishment

If by “pretty anti-establishment” you mean “a common criminal”, yes.

Tom In VA wrote:That kind of goes up my ass.

Sig material.