Michael Hirsh nails it on Obama...

Email Print posted by bobo1 04/18/2008 09:26:53 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
I forget which day Michael Hirsh comes on the show (I think its Mondays), but Im sure the next visit will be interesting if Cenk is doing the interview...

Here is the link to his article on Obama and the comparison to the Kerry 2004 campaign...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/ 132566

Basically, he says that Obama is being framed or drawn as a whimp and cannot take the National Security debate to the Republicans.
 
I know that some of you guys dont like Hirsh, but he pretty much describes the bad situation Obama is painting himself into on this. It kinda goes along with my running theme on why Democrats who try to run on issues dont get elected - with the recent ABC debate as well, it solidifies the unfortunate truth that most Americans dont care about the issues on their face, rather they need to know why Obama doesnt wear a flag lapel and why he associates himself with less than reputable people...

Any thoughts? Thanks for your time, as always...

:)
< ABC's Preemptive Swiftboating Doctrine | All Right TYT Community, I Can't Take This BS >
 Display:
Michael Hirsh nails it on Obama... | 50 comments (50 topical, 0 hidden)
Calling out Bobo (none / 0)
I'm not going to let you dodge the question

The material below is from a previous post that you ignored. Since you do not miss and opportunity to slam Obama or comment on those who defend him I can only assume that you ignored the post out of fear or embarrassment of being called.

The vast preponderance of your posts are anti-Obama. You rarely if ever comment on Clinton and your discussion of McCain is limited to a few "Grandpa Death" remarks. So lets cut through the pretense and get down to it shall we?  Here's the post:

I am not exactly sure why you feel compelled to post when you have nothing to add other than the same old bromides, false concern...and now...thinly veiled hints at "revolution"

Please. Basically what you are saying get a hooker, a bottle and party party party because their is no hope.

 and I fear that Obama would not be any different either...

Where you are wrong is that one person can make a difference in this world. History is replete with examples.

Is Obama one of those people? I honestly don't know. All of the great presidents , great leaders of all stripes, have flaws...some had significant mental or physical issues. If they were subjected to the hypercritical media circus that passes for discourse in the modern U.S. they would  have been excluded from office.

Because  there are no other viable alternatives (other than leaving the country ) I am willing to take a chance on Obama.  For that reason I do not understand your constant sniping that essentially is self destructive prattle with no purpose.

So here's the challenge

Right now there are three choices your either  McCain supporter, a Clinton Supporter or a liar. Which is it?

 

Your "voice in the wildness" act is wearing a bit thin. Your " above it all" demeanor is also transparent. I'm not buying it. You have an agenda, no faux manners, smiley faces can hide it. Don't get me wrong, you have every right to level criticism at  Obama. I cant stop you nor do I want to.

But I suspect, no, I know, your not doing it out of concern for the country or the Democratic party or the simple exercise of your rights as a citizen. You obviously have a candidate in mind. Thats fine, stop pretending you don't. No one is buying the "I don't have a dog in this fight" attitude.

If not, again I remind you that  there are no other viable alternatives. Its either McCain, Obama,Clinton or no vote.

If your saying that you do not support any candidate, warts and all, then I would submit you really have little room to criticize.

The reality is there will be two candidates one of which will ultimately be President of the United States. Period.

You offer no meaningful comments other than how fucked up this country election process is. We get it. That's not the question ,  the real issue is what are you going to do about it. What do you want? How can we help?


by MRFred on 04/18/2008 10:26:39 AM EST

Hey Ken (none / 0)

When you finish with twba's happy ending can you take care of Fred for me.

I would but I have a hang up about the whole "I'm not  gay" thing. 

by ProfRich on 04/18/2008 10:47:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Uh (none / 0)

I think your confused.

If you want to take a swing. Do it yourself. 

by MRFred on 04/18/2008 12:38:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No Fred (none / 0)

I am praising you.  I was referring to this exchange:

Ken:
Twba is undefeated in this forum. After a while you realize that either his views are correct, or he is smarter than everyone else, or both. I think its both.

Spencer:

Just hurry up and blow him already.

by ProfRich on 04/18/2008 01:07:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh...the "TWBA defense" (none / 0)
Yeah, that's a favorite of Kens.The ever popular Appeal to Authority He invokes the TWBA is a GENIUS ! spiel  when he runs out of talking points or needs a ally in an hopeless argument. 

by MRFred on 04/18/2008 03:09:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Twba really is a genius. (none / 0)
And he magically appears whenever his name is invoked.

He's like Dr. Bombay on Bewitched.
dr bombay

by KenTX on 04/23/2008 06:52:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Or the devil (none / 0)
Speak of the devil and he appears

by ProfRich on 04/23/2008 08:36:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I find it very entertaining. (none / 0)
When Democrats try to follow the logic of Twba's neoclassical liberal economic theory, it reminds me of the scene in 2001 A Space Odyssey, where the apes were trying to understand the meaning of the obelisk.
rich, fred, ihavenobias 

by KenTX on 04/23/2008 10:00:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I see... (none / 0)

That more and more people are getting as exasparated as I am trying to figure out exactly what the hell this guy wants.  I've never seen anybody put nothing into so many words as Bobo.  I still can't figure out where the hell he stands, except that he's against Obama.

He could have replaced reams and reams of commentary over the last couple of months with this statement:

"I don't like Obama, I don't think he can win, I don't see why anyone would support him.  The other two won't make any difference either."


Think how much cleaner the blogs would be. 

by bfaul on 04/18/2008 11:13:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
OK, I'll make this short... (none / 0)
Fred -

Dude, Shut the Fuck Up and Blog.

Dont be a Whiny Little Bitch...

I will not bow to your "be supportive or leave" or "You have to choose somebody" premise because they suck balls.

I dont support any of the candidates. If you dont like that, well, then too bad, so sad...

If you cant handle opposing viewpoints, then go back on your boat and sail somewhere. Your bully routine is old and tired...

If you would like to comment on the Hirsh article, then please feel free to do so.

Thanks for your continued support!

:)

by bobo1 on 04/18/2008 11:31:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
A brief story (none / 0)

I have parable for you Bobo.

One day a man went to a dog show.  He walked around opining loudly on all the different breeds.  He said that the Chihuahuas looked like rats, and the Huskys looked like vicious wolves, and the bloodhounds looked like dopes and the greyhounds looked like starving clothing models.  A woman breeding beagles listened to him pontificate on how noisy and annoying they were as a breed. She asked him, "What is your preferred breed?"  He answered,  "I don't dislike any breed more than the others, with the possible exception of beagles, it's just that I don't particularly like dogs in general".  The woman answered, "Then what the f*ck are you doing at a dog show?"  To which he sniffed, "How rude!" and walked away. 

Take what wisdom you can from that story. 

by bfaul on 04/18/2008 12:27:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thank you bfaul... (none / 0)
for your parable...

One slight problem in this case though, that being I do love politics and I like talking/conversing/arguing with people, especially short sighted Liberals. Its a sick sensation sort of thing, really...

Fred and company are just mad because I dont particularly follow their ideas and their politics. I refuse to just shut up or go away simply because I dont drink the kool aid and join the minions. Until this forum becomes off limits to differing opinions, I will still contribute at my discretion. Aint Freedom Grand?...

If you cant take criticism, get the hell out of the political arena. I take my criticisms and shoot right back. Maybe the Liberals could learn something from that...

Thanks for your time, bfaul...

:)

by bobo1 on 04/18/2008 12:36:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I dont know about anyone else (none / 0)
but Im not mad. I realized long ago that you and KenTx use the same brain. In fact you are quite boring.

by Chinese Democracy on 04/18/2008 12:42:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I think I may agree with you (none / 0)

The style and speech patterns are so similar it's uncanny. Real people are capable of interaction and changing their views or making concessions once in a while. This really seems like an act, doesn't it?

by hazmat on 04/18/2008 01:37:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
one last question (none / 0)

So which breed of dog do you prefer?

I'm not sayin' anything, I'm just sayin'. 

by bfaul on 04/18/2008 01:12:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
For me (none / 0)
I love my little Pomeranian. He's 4.  His name is Jack (after Jack Ingram, a singer and friend of mine and the Jack of Hearts from Lilly, Rosemary and the Jack of Hearts)

by ProfRich on 04/18/2008 01:18:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh but (none / 0)
Those Pomeranians bark real smooth and all that, but can they tree a cat?  Huh?

by bfaul on 04/18/2008 02:47:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Let's consider that response for a second... (none / 0)

 

Dude, Shut the Fuck Up and Blog.
and

If you cant handle opposing viewpoints,

You seem confused. Conflicted. Let me help you. I can handle opposing viewpoints just fine. as I said

Don't get me wrong, you have every right to level criticism at  Obama. I cant stop you nor do I want to.

You have the problem, you have yet to logically lay one out for us other than:

  • the pro Obama bloggers on TYT are " Obomabots", implying some sort of mindless cult.
  • all the candidates suck...see this guy ( choose one) says so
  • your smarter than everyone because your disillusioned with the election process ,
  • you don't have a dog in this fight but the supporters of ( fill in the blank) are idiots for doing so.

 So if discussion is what you want I suggest you provide a vehicle to do that other than

I don't support anyone.  You support ( your choice) therefore you are a moron.

Oh yeah

You squash dissent and limit speech by
intimidation and name calling - bobo to TYT blogger

Dont be a Whiny Little Bitch... bobo to MRFred

 Speaks for itself, doesn't it.


by MRFred on 04/18/2008 12:50:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Off the top rope (none / 0)
So good I may never have to respond to bobo again.
The forum thanks you.

by Spencer on 04/18/2008 03:22:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
None of the above (none / 0)
If your saying that you do not support any candidate, warts and all, then I would submit you really have little room to criticize.

If neither party nominates a candidate worth supporting, that may be the case where criticism is most warranted.

by Twba on 04/18/2008 01:27:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It's a story soon told though (none / 0)

Suggesting ways to change the method of selecting candidates is one thing.  That's an interesting conversation.   Endlessly criticizing all the candidates once the field is set is another thing entirely.  There's only so many ways you can say "I don't like any of them" before you start triggering the gag reflex in people and once things get to that point the argument kind of goes like this:   

I hate all the candidates!  All of them!  I hate them all!  They're useless!  They won't change anything!

Gag!

I'm going to give my opinion whether it gags you or not!

Gag!

Why should I have to choose?

Gag!

That's not funny!

Gag! 

 

See what I mean?  Boring, isn't it? 

by bfaul on 04/18/2008 02:43:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A choice or a result ? (none / 0)

If neither party nominates a candidate worth supporting, that may be the case where criticism is most warranted.

Criticism is one thing, hidden agendas and captious sniping quite another. Politics aside, I understand the frustration Bobo describes ( though I have my doubts about his sincerity, not that it matters). 

This country has yet to support third party and a viable one hasn't been presented since the Bull Moose party(?) so it seems that our electoral process is what it is. Will Americans get so disgusted that a third party arises? It seems now would be the time.

Candidates, good bad or indifferent; if you don't participate the decision is made for you.

by MRFred on 04/18/2008 09:32:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No need for ? (none / 0)

Bull Moose was the last serious 3rd party threat.

Elections where 3 parties won EV

1968- Wallace won 46 EV in the South.  Yay racism!

1948-Strom Thurmond overcame his advanced age to get 39 EV. Yay racism!

1924-Lafollete won Wisconsin.  Progressive

1912- Teddy got 88. Progressive.  Taft, GOP nominee and incumbet got 23% and 8 EV.  Ouch!

1892-Populist Weaver got 22.  Progressive.

1860- Three Dems ran and combined for 60% of vote and 123 EV.  Pretty much racism.

1856-Republicans were third party.  Fremont (Guy who stole CA from MX) got 114 EV, beating 2nd party Whigs (8)

!836 and before pretty much always saw 3 to 7 candidates pick up EV.

I don't know why I feel the need to make posts like this.  If you like them. Enjoy.  If you find them obnoxious, sorry. 

by ProfRich on 04/19/2008 12:36:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
for what its worth (none / 0)
it impresses me.

by hazmat on 04/19/2008 01:27:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ok (none / 0)

I never said there was no need for.  I said If there was a time for the switch to flip in the mind of the electorate for a third party it would be now. Apparently not.

How would a third party president do with no legislative support...who knows .

by MRFred on 04/19/2008 11:07:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
effortless (none / 0)
"I don't know why I feel the need to make posts like this.  If you like them. Enjoy."

I like them. They always give me the opportunity to prove you wrong.

The last serious third party threat was in the 2000 election, when Ralph Nader took 97,000 votes in the State of Florida. You might recall that George Bush won Florida by 537 votes.

Now that's what I call a serious third party threat.

Hey, you're right! That was enjoyable!

by KenTX on 04/23/2008 10:10:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Fat Albert (none / 0)
If not, again I remind you that  there are no other viable alternatives. Its either McCain, Obama,Clinton or no vote.

There is an alternative. After Democrats nominate this guy, I want you guys calling me "The Oracle".
fat guy

by KenTX on 04/23/2008 06:04:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What's the Solution? (none / 0)
I think Hirsh brings up a very important issue that a lot of Obama supporters don't want to address, however, he doesn't provide a solution.  Like Tracy Morgan in 30 Rock last night before he saw Nixon's ghost, Obama's in a "quandary" (hee hee) with this whole patriotism/non-issue garbage.  If he doesn't give some sort of response to these inane questions, he comes off as dodging the questions, though if he spends the time to explain himself, the issue tends to get blown up up even more. 

Yes we all know Obama has a "third way" of answering these questions through creative an eloquent means, but this type of response is not going to help in the red states come November.  As is the case with his questions to Patraeus and Crocker, although crafty, I thought he failed tremendously and should of grilled their asses like Biden did as he should with McCain.  This whole buddy, buddy thing has gone too far.  Don't be a Kerry - stand up for yourself and let 'em have it!

by rev24 on 04/18/2008 12:31:18 PM EST

Republicans have tried every dirty trick (none / 0)
caging  stopping blacks from voting  voter fraud  and still they lost both houses of congress and will lose the white house.

 I have no doubt at all that Obama can play the conservative game of staying away from the issues which they lose on every time and try to confuse people with lapel pins and middle names.

"He's getting Kerryized. At a time when he should be taking on John McCain, he's being forced to talk about lapel pins."

That is true. That debate was the worst one I have ever seen and generally regarded as probably one of the worst ones ever.

Hillary is using dirty republican tactics to attack Obama and he brushes it off nicely. In fact his numbers keep going up.

by Chinese Democracy on 04/18/2008 12:32:02 PM EST

Thoughts (none / 0)
I know that some of you guys dont like Hirsh...

It's not that I don't like him; he just pales in comparison to Newsweek's best writer, Fareed Zakaria. Hirsh is likable enough.

Incidentally, Obama's "likable enough" debate moment was the first crack in his facade that began to show his arrogance and elitist attitude. His comments in San Fran just widened the crack.

So, His Hopeness wants a free pass for associating with a man who bombed the Pentagon decades ago. Would he also demand that McCain get a free pass if it were revealed that McCain had been chilling at the home of a man who bombed an abortion clinic a few decades ago? No double standard there, right?

by Twba on 04/18/2008 01:26:21 PM EST

wha? huh? (none / 0)

McCain gets a free pass on everything. Lets call em all on all their potential issues and let the chips fall where they may.

Maybe they can't give Obama a free pass cause McCain used em all up. 

by ProfRich on 04/18/2008 01:28:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
On and on (none / 0)

"So, His Hopeness wants a free pass for associating... blah blah blah"

Gag! 

by bfaul on 04/18/2008 03:19:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama knows less about economics than McCain (none / 0)
GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

Gag!

by Twba on 04/23/2008 05:38:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Got the lightning response team on this one, twba? (none / 0)

We all saw that and Cenk already attacked it (false logic, if you put the tax rate at 1% will that increase revenue? 0%?)

Here is the bigger problem with the argument.

Reagan cut cap gains taxes and economy sucked.  They were higher under Clinton until he signed a GOP bill to lower them in 1997.  Which means the bill went into effect in 1998 for the taxes collected in 1999.  What happened next?  Economy began to suck.

Bush lowered them and?  Economy sucked.

I know Charlie Gibson is so stupid about the economy he thinks the average family in the US makes over 250k (what an assclown) and he loves him some rich guy tax cuts for his $7million a year salary he is earning by "reporting" what is on the Sean Hannity show but this whole line of questioning was just stupid rich guy gimme my tax cut nonsense.

Where did this question come from?  Let's see no time for questions on the war, health care or the economy that is actually affecting 90% of struggling Americans but lets take 10 minutes to throw out some rich guy tax cut propaganda!

Wish I could say I am surprised you bought into it.

Is Hillary proposing a cut in cap gain tax?  If not, why the hell is this question in a Dem primary debate? 

by ProfRich on 04/23/2008 09:37:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Lightning in a bottle (none / 0)
We all saw that and Cenk already attacked it (false logic, if you put the tax rate at 1% will that increase revenue? 0%?)

Cenk is wrong. I'll crank up the lightning generator later.

by Twba on 04/23/2008 10:30:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I am waiting (none / 0)
You show me that a 0% tax rate on Capital Gains will lead to an increase in the tax revenue of the capital gains tax and I will be extremely impressed.  That is the argument Cenk made.

by ProfRich on 04/23/2008 10:36:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Spark (none / 0)
That is the argument Cenk made.

And Cenk's rant about cutting the rate to zero has nothing to do with Charlie's question. Gibson asked Obama about raising the cap gains tax rate.

by Twba on 04/23/2008 10:47:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
But (none / 0)

That is what you said you would prove was wrong.  Read your own post.

And Gibson may have asked about raising the rate but all he talked about was cutting the rate, right?

For all I know the revenue goes up when you raise it too, more for that matter if the only source I have is Gibson's question.

It was an embaressing display as every rational observer could see.  You had Stephie putting together his demo tape to get the drive time slot on Fox radio and Gibson quivering like a bowl of jelly because his massive tax breaks he gets on his unearned salry might be in jeopardy.  Then we had the racist lady they went out and "found" by reading her quotes in the NYT.

So either flip-flop or back up the post where you said you would prove Cenk wrong that 0% cap gains tax rate will increase tax gain revenue. 

by ProfRich on 04/23/2008 11:07:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Combustion (none / 0)
So either flip-flop or back up the post where you said you would prove Cenk wrong that 0% cap gains tax rate will increase tax gain revenue.

This is actually what I wrote:

We all saw that and Cenk already attacked it (false logic, if you put the tax rate at 1% will that increase revenue? 0%?)

Cenk is wrong. I'll crank up the lightning generator later.

I said Cenk is wrong. I did not say about what Cenk is wrong.

Cenk wrote:

And now Charlie Gibson asks, no demands, that Clinton and Obama pledge to never, ever raise taxes. He says that revenues always rise when you lower capital gains taxes. Really? Would they rise even more if we lower the rate to 1%? How about 0%?

I already cut and pasted from ABC's transcript of the debate. Show me where Gibson "says that revenues always rise when you lower capital gains taxes."

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

Cenk's rant about a zero percent rate is a straw man argument. Cenk is wrong. Gibson's question is about raising the rate and the effects that would have on the economy.

by Twba on 04/23/2008 12:00:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Contest (none / 0)

While twba is busy cutting and pasting from the Citizens for Growth website and Ken is warming up the massage oil who can, just using sheer logic, explain why immediately after capital gains taxes are cut there is in increase in capital gains tax revenues?  And why it that a short term gain?

Its really not that complicated. 

by ProfRich on 04/23/2008 01:08:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Contested (none / 0)
...explain why immediately after capital gains taxes are cut there is in increase in capital gains tax revenues?

Revenue spikes immediately after a tax cut for the same reason that revenue spikes immediately before a tax hike takes effect. Rational investors choose to sell an asset when the tax is lower. Raising the tax rate causes many investors to sit on assets that they would otherwise sell. Investors also become more risk averse because the eventual payoff from a risky investment is lower the higher the tax rate. A lower capital gains tax rate has the effect of increasing risky investments in new businesses and jobs.

Reagan cut cap gains taxes and economy sucked.

Actually, Congress cut the tax rate. Congress writes tax law. The president signs it or vetoes it. Congress raised the capital gains tax rate in 1969. The 1970s sucked hard. Congress cut the rate in 1978. The 80s rocked. Venture capitalists funded startups that generated profits, tax revenue and jobs, jobs and more jobs.

Congress passed and Clinton signed a reduction in the capital gains tax rate in 1997. The economy managed only two years of growth of 4 percent or more in the decade prior to the 1997 cap gains cut; it posted three straight years of such growth in 1997, 1998 and 1999. Remember how the federal budget deficit turned into a surplus? The Clinton boom was the result of a low capital gains tax rate.

Where did this question come from? ... Is Hillary proposing a cut in cap gain tax?  If not, why the hell is this question in a Dem primary debate?

Did you even watch the debate or read the transcript? Charlie's question was preceded by the reason for the question's inclusion in the debate.

GIBSON: You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax.

Obama told the Money Honey that he would like to increase the capital gains tax rate. Charlie Gibson's question definitely belonged in the debate.

by Twba on 04/28/2008 12:23:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No title (none / 0)

First, cap gains tax cuts are kind of like having a half off sale for investment income.  It provides a quick burst of income trading off later income.  Isn't that the kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.  As for the rest, it is irrlevant to Gibson's point.  I haven't looked into it much but you are clearly evaluating this in a vacuum, i.e. you can just cut the cap gains taxes without having to either cut programs, which McCain isn't actually proposing, raising taxes or borrowing money.  Sure Cap gains tax cuts provide some benefit but you would need to show it is the most beneficial course.

Fine, Congress cut the tax rate.  No impact on the argument.  The 80s did not rock.  They only "rocked" if you ignore the massive debt we took on.  When you normalize the numbers for the debt the 80s were quite weak.  Also, the 80s, like the 20s and now the 00s were benficial for the wealthy and destructive for the middle class and working poor.  I know you think this is a good thing and that's fine but be up front with that.  Its relevant to people's understanding of the issue.

Gibson should have said in the 80s the cap gains tax cut was awesome for his rich ass but the vast majority of the country suffered so why don't you support a cap gains tax cut?  That would have been an honest question.

So the Clinton growth begain in 1997 BEFORE the tax cut went into effect, huh?  That kind of destroys that argument.

As for why the question was in the debate, it shouldn't have been.  The ostensible purpose of the debate was to help Democratic primary voters to choose between Obama and Clinton.  This question did nothing to help that process.  It simply was a GOP talking inappropriately injected into this forum. 

by ProfRich on 04/28/2008 01:28:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Just words (none / 0)
16 April:
And, you know, the notion that somehow that the American people are going to be distracted once again by comments not made by me, but somebody who is associated with me that I have disowned, I think doesn't give the American people enough credit.

18 March:

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother...

Gag!

by Twba on 04/23/2008 05:40:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
explain (none / 0)
If so, why does Obama seem to be getting more and more popular?  and Clinton seems to be the one suffering from her negative attacks on him. 

by desertpear on 04/18/2008 02:50:02 PM EST

Yeah (none / 0)
I find great hope in this basic truth.

by bfaul on 04/18/2008 03:22:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey the Laughton Smalls gig is wearin' thin (none / 0)

Michael Hirsh is a twinkie and I called him on it...  you are a paid monkey, or you are playing with your monkey while yer posting either way my advice to all the well intentioned posters here is to ignore you. Short - sighted libs eh?  Coming from a narrow - minded conserv?

ps - stuff the smiley

by pictman on 04/18/2008 02:53:18 PM EST

Well... (none / 0)
I dont know who Laughton Smalls is, and when I googled it, I still couldnt get a straight answer, so thanks for the way out of the way attempt at an insult even though your reference is lost on many of our fellow readers...

Secondly, who the fuck would pay someone to post on a small radio talk show site? If they do, please send me the info so I can get paid for this shit!

Thirdly If you are so interested in monkeys, they have a great display at the San Diego Zoo - Im sure you will find it to your liking... If not, there are a few fellow posters here that can satisfy your man/monkey desires...

Otherwise, thank you for your contribution...

:)  :)

2 smileys for you!!!





by bobo1 on 04/18/2008 03:13:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
sorry my bad... (none / 0)

The name is Lawton Smalls...

Hey pal you picked the monkey name to post under... 

by pictman on 04/18/2008 06:45:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Colbert (none / 0)

Did everyone see Clinton, Obama, and Edwards on the Colbert Report last night?  If not, it was wonderfully funny and refreshing after all the negative campaigning.

Darn, looks like they already yanked the segment with Obama.  It was funny!! 

Hillary
http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=FcAcYZJg6Rs

Edwards
http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=7Kb35SJRm5k

 

by desertpear on 04/18/2008 04:05:12 PM EST

here it is (none / 0)

Check it out before they yank it!

http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=VQLnvz66IN8&feature =PlayList&p=EB72DC40C0C ED8D8&index=20

Sorry for the hijack, but it is friday right? 

by desertpear on 04/18/2008 04:15:58 PM EST

Michael Hirsh nails it on Obama... | 50 comments (50 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: