woodchip wrote:... and people wondering who that Obama fella was.
That part is way wrong. He built a network to get elected that he is turning into a tool to make him a puppet master. He will be selling access to his political machine in exchange for a seat at every table that dishes out power. The data bases that he is privy to now will be incorporated into his own system before he leaves office.
If he doesn't screw the pooch really badly before he leaves, so badly that everyone turns on him, he will be a player in all our lives for decades making Bill Clinton's role look like a walk on extra with no lines in the script.
woodchip wrote:... and people wondering who that Obama fella was.
That part is way wrong. He built a network to get elected that he is turning into a tool to make him a puppet master. He will be selling access to his political machine in exchange for a seat at every table that dishes out power. The data bases that he is privy to now will be incorporated into his own system before he leaves office.
If he doesn't screw the pooch really badly before he leaves, so badly that everyone turns on him, he will be a player in all our lives for decades making Bill Clinton's role look like a walk on extra with no lines in the script.
So you are saying he is a bit like J Edgar Hoover was.
you are likely delusional, and the GOP knows it. They have utterly NO chance to take the Senate, and actually a mathematical chance to lose the House. The public? They are already pretty well disgusted with this brand of hateful conservatism. You couldn't elect a 'new conservative' in any state in the Northeast at the moment, Virginia is turning to the Dems out of utter frustration with these clowns, and the only other places one sees hope for GOP victories are the result of restrictions on access to voting. Heck, I hear that the way the photo ID laws are being drawn up, women are being given hurdles around EXACT name changes, that require original documents(marriage or divorce) and fees. Hmmmm, maybe because the GOP is getting killed by female votes. This trend is not going to hold forever, and this 'new conservatism' is going to get swamped by demographics within a decade. Now, it will be interesting to see if something akin to old-school Republicanism forms into a new party, with sensible fiscal balance and a more isolationist foreign policy. Right now, your 'new conservatism' is just a political gift-horse to the Democrats.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
Will makes solid points, with Woody adding a glib, yet stupid reply. Obama reunited a whole bunch of different factions, much akin to what Reagan did for the GOP. You have a coalition that includes immigrants of all levels of affluence(Mexican, Asian, etc), young voters, women voters, etc. It is diverse, it is the future and it is strong. The way the GOP has conducted itself has alienated virtually the entire body of the new US voting demographics for the coming generation, and they WILL pay for that.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
callmeslick wrote:Will makes solid points, with Woody adding a glib, yet stupid reply.
Well lets take a look at slicks totally ignorant and knee-jerk reply. Will stated:
"He built a network to get elected that he is turning into a tool to make him a puppet master. He will be selling access to his political machine in exchange for a seat at every table that dishes out power. The data bases that he is privy to now will be incorporated into his own system before he leaves office."
Let me remind camelsdick that like Obama, Hoover (the FBI Director not the vacuum cleaner builder as slick thinks) had his own data base and kept his seat of power because of it. Slick if you want to argue something specific do so but stop throwing out your eye bleeding generalities as though you are a expert on the matter and we should all just accept your opinions as true.
Will Robinson wrote:In that case would it have been named that with any ill intent though? Black being a non offensive term at the time. If not it seems improper to acuse anyone of being offensive when the lexicon shifts to make the term offensive after the fact.
The argument that "Redskins" was originally chosen to honor Indians doesn't help much. I don't think it's a good idea for NFL teams to be in the business of honoring specific races either.
Then we should get rid of the Kansas City Chiefs, as calling a indian "Chief" is derogatory. So instead of looking at one name, lets make a list of all names with racial slurs connotated with them. Concentrating on just one name and forgetting the rest merely looks like selective pandering to the PC crowd.
Not necessarily. A "chief" means "one who is in highest rank or authority". For example, a "navy chief petty officer". It's also slang for "boss". Take away the arrowhead symbol and the meaning changes quickly.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
woodchip wrote:And Redskins can mean people who forgot to bring their sunscreen to the beach
if you've ever seen my Midwestern and New England fishing buddies after a week of surf fishing at my Virginia place, you'd know exactly how accurate that statement is!
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
