Not A Good Night For Abrams

Email Print posted by ihavenobias 05/12/2008 09:38:32 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
Cenk made some interesting points last week about how Olbermann opened the door for liberals/progressives on television, particularly on MSNBC.

He referenced a clip from Dan Abrams show that had the head of NARAL and Jonathon Alter from NewsWeek (if I remember correctly).

But as Cenk correctly added, MSNBC still has a long way to go...

The opening panel on Dan Abrams tonight had Christine Todd Whitman, Tucker Carlson and Norah O'Donnell. 

In other words, Republican, Republican and right leaning centrist that often buys into Republican framing (who also happens to be hot but has a horrible laugh. But she's hot so it's okay).

The most annoying segment was when Dan asked the panel why having Hillary as VP is so bad.  Of course Whitman and Tucker thought it was an amazing idea (again, of course), and I'm not sure what Norah said specifically, but I know she didn't disagree.

But the worst part was that Dan Abrams himself was trying to argue that Obama supporters were just against the idea of Hillary based on some type of lofty, ideological (and irrational) principle.

Tucker expanded on that idea and used some cliche lines slamming (elite/out of touch/Volvo driving, etc.) Obama supporters.  If an impressionable fool was watching, they'd walk away thinking that being against Hillary as a vp choice is not only wrong, but irrational and petty.


All in all it was a disappointing night for Dan's show.


< Texas sinkhole: metaphor for Bush administration | TYT's Rant on Tattoos >
 Display:
Not A Good Night For Abrams | 50 comments (50 topical, 0 hidden)
You Are Right (none / 0)
Dan Abrams was definitely a huge disappointment; I couldn't stand that Christian Whitman. I just don't get what Dan was thinking. It was especially tough listening to Whitman's Republican framing without any challenge. Suprise of suprises though, I thought Nora O'Donnell gave it an honest try to balance things a little...

TUCKER CARLSON??....WHO CARES!!!!!

by acramer on 05/12/2008 10:22:55 PM EST

Well (none / 0)
You're in trouble when you're looking to NO'D to balance out The Right.

And yes, it was obnoxious to hear CTW. I wasn't sure who she was at first and just assumed she was part of the Clinton campaign because she had so many good things to say in support of Hillary. For example, how West Virginia does and SHOULD matter and the race is NOT over.

Uh-huh, sure, sure.  She has no vested interest in expressing that opinion.

by ihavenobias on 05/12/2008 10:26:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I saw this segment today (none / 0)
And I was thinking the exact same thing. I actually didn't watch the rest of the show because of how disgusting this was. Not the fact that there was an argument presented in favor of Clinton as veep but that they all were like "Oh that is the perfect solution, why would they possibly not want that?"

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 12:47:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
What a misleading title for a blog! (none / 0)

Suggestions

The Most Annoying Segment was when Dan asked the Panel why having Hillary as VP is so BAD.

Obama supporters are just against the idea of Hillary based on some type of lofty, ideological (and irrational) principle.

Abrams and a Donkey! 

 

by MRFred on 05/12/2008 10:58:08 PM EST

Son of a... (none / 0)
;)

by ihavenobias on 05/12/2008 11:19:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That image (none / 0)
consider it stolen.

by jarett on 05/13/2008 01:03:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
give em credit, bias... (none / 0)
I happened to catch Abrams show and the segment you refer to. Now as for choice of balanced commentators, I will give you credit in saying that it wasnt the most balanced group he has ever assembled...

But I must protest in that in fairness, bias, not everyone is an avid Obama supporter. I think what Abrams and his panel were trying to convey (and the West Virginia primary tomorrow will exemplify) is that only upwards of 52% of democrats over this entire primary season voted for Obama. That leaves the other 48% who did not initially support him.

Now I know the professor will throw numbers and statistics at me, calling me aloof and such, but why does the Obama wing of the party think it has some clear mandate to change the world and assume power without having the unity of its own party - This is a brokered nomination, and some concessions are going to have to be made to the base Clinton supporters - I think Abrams and indeed the rest of the MSM have found their next story - What will make the poor white democrats happy? Without them - an Obama presidency doesnt happen!!!

I know you guys will wretch and vomit on this, and I know many of you people really believe that Obama is some messianic figure who will lead us to a new promised land, but you must realize that you have not converted the masses - Yes, Obama has a good chance of winning, but how much of a mandate will you really have defeating a senile old man from another split party? (Thank you DR Paul and Bob Barr). Beating McCain is the goal, but to what end - it certainly wont be the grand race you predict on this blog...
 
With only 52% of your own party, its gonna be a hard road to convince the Middle American White Trash Joe Sixpack toothless hillbilly majority in this country that your guy isnt just another Chicago slickster who really does hold an air of contempt for poor whites... Obama's problem is that of substance, and we have yet to see any sort of hand out from the Obama camp to reassure us that they are for us too...

Putting Hillary on the ticket would do that in a heartbeat. It would show that Obama is willing to work with the 48% of us who didnt vote for him, among those the close to 30% of us who will otherwise never vote for him - You cant have the revolution without making some concessions to your enemies...

I know I know - Shut Up bobo...

Thanks for your time, anyway!!!

:)

by bobo1 on 05/12/2008 11:58:18 PM EST

Even when you are right, you are wrong (none / 0)

Just playing (sorta).

I am not going to run numbers at you on this because I agree.  Obama certainly has to bring the Hillary wing back in.  He has three things working for him.

1) They aren't that far apart at all on policy.  No great rifts to heal (like the war/draft in 68) or McCain and his lack of Jesus-Freakery and tax cut love this year.

2) Once you wrap up the nomination you move to the center.  Since Hillary is to the right of Obama, he is gonna be heading your way anyway.  Jump on!

3) In all this talk about the Clintons being master manipulators of power how come no one points out that they know what to do when they lose the nomination.  Get behind the nominee and win the White House.  Hillary really has no interest in being a Senator with McCain holding the veto stamp.  Obama will, I think, give Bill a seat on the SC (and the crowd goes wild!) if he wants it.  They have absolutely nothing to win and everything to lose by obstructing Obama.  They are going to be his biggest crusaders in a month or so.

As for Hillary for VP, if she wants the job I think he has to offer it, personally.  Not because I want her to have it (ambivalent on the matter) but because he does need to end the rift.  If she doesn't want it, then he really has to offer.  Then he gets the boost and it costs him nothing.

You are right, it is a brokered nomination.  Obama does need to put this all behind him and move on.  This is not such a big problem as you suggest, it seems to me.  Add to the reasons above this.  McCain is hated by the base of his party.  He has no opponent whatsoever and can barely get two out of three votes in Republican primaries.  Obama's support is monolithic compared to this clown.  McCain only managed 51% of the vote in the most important GOP state (TX).

But while we agree mostly I have to take exception to the premise of all Hillary supporters basic argument.  That supporting Obama means believing him to be a world-changing messianic figure.  As far as I have read NOBODY, not one regular poster, on this board espouses this.  We all seem to either (a) believe he had already won or (b) knew he was a politician but slightly preferred him to whoever was left.

Me, I am all about winning and whether by a vote or a landslide this is our guy.  Whatever he can do to reach out to any and all Dem voters now he should do.  

The Obama supporter who thinks he shouldn't and believes Obama can blow off the Hillary (or Edwards or Biden or Kucinich etc) suppoerters becuase Obama is some superman don't post around here and I suspect are straw men.  I have never heard or met one but I don't get out too much. 

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 12:38:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It has to be Hillary. (none / 0)
What other choice do you have? It doesn't matter what Michelle Obama thinks.

Obama has to extend the offer. If Hillary accepts, she can run for president in 2012 if the ticket loses in 2008. If Hillary declines, she can run for president in 2012 if the ticket loses in 2008.

All she has to do is to make sure that Barack Obama loses.

by KenTX on 05/13/2008 02:03:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Obviously Obama DOES need (none / 0)
to win over certain voting populations he doesn't done as well with, that's a given.

But having Jim Webb or Gen. Wesley Clark also serves that purporse. Sure, they won't excite some of the women voters as much, but either of those two *would* excite more independents which could help make up the difference.

Besides, a lot of the women HAVE to come around once they discover (or are reminded) that McCain wants to (basically) take them back to the 1800's with his terrible judicial appointments.  But picking two old, southern white veterans with help with the blue collar males who may not give a f*k about judgers but DO care about "toughness" or whatever.

by ihavenobias on 05/13/2008 12:02:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
All true (none / 0)
But I still think he has to at least appear to offer it to her.  I think the whole thing might be staged with a predetermined result of her not taking it.  But they need to resolve this somehow and that seems like a good way.

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 12:32:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I disagree with a lot of what you just said (none / 0)
But this is one of the most reasoned posts you've made of late.

The reasons for why Hillary should be VP can be made logically, my problem with the segment was that it didn't accurately portray why most Obama supporters find her unacceptable. I don't want to go into detail, we've all gone over the arguments over and over so I'm sure both sides know the other side's points by now. Suffice it to say it has to do with the more recent positions and talking points she's made vis a vis us and what we believe in rather than arguments against Obama as a candidate or for her superiority. Abrams has actually made some of these points over the last week or so, so I'm a little surprised that he didn't articulate them if he wasn't going to have a guest on who would.

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 12:44:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Made my post at the same time as ProfRich (none / 0)
So my above comments are clearly directed at Bobo. They're not really attacking him, or at least aren't meant to anyway, but I still felt the need to clarify. Mostly since ProfRich laid out a case that I agree with just about wholeheartedly.

(And will the Hillary supporters stop "drinking the kool-aid" long enough to acknowledge that a lot, if not most, of us started out supporting other candidates, even Hillary, until only the two of them were left?)

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 12:56:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
By the way (none / 0)
I didn't fully read your last couple of paragraphs initially. You know, the ones where you say Obama needs to convince you that he isn't "just another Chicago slickster who really does hold an air of contempt for poor whites."

Since you seem to be unaware of both history (ironic) as well as the midwestern, middle America city of Chicago, let me give you a little refresher. Chicago politicians have never been "slicksters" (this isn't NY or Boston or LA) and won their elections here because of and for poor whites. The Irish and Polish descendant communities in particular, but whites overall as well. It is only recently that minorities have benefitted from (by which I mean gaining power in) the Chicago machine. In fact, the man most responsible for the dominance of the Chicago Democratic Machine is one Mayor Richard J. Daley. That would be the father of the current mayor of Chicago. He won elections and increased his power by playing to the racial prejudices and economic fears of poor whites in the city and Cook County. This is what lead to horrible, segregrated housing projects that some have called "the place where hope died." To learn more about what a Chicago politician has typified in the past, you may want to read more in-depth sources.

Ahhhh, books. You can still learn history even if you've had sub-par instructors in the field.

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 02:00:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Don't feel bad (none / 0)

I can't remember the last time I made it through a bobo post.

(And, yes, I have some long-ass posts.  I am sure many of you don't finish them.  Like my close election post.) 

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 02:06:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Man if you think you've had long-ass posts (none / 0)
I direct you to one of my early attempts. It did come from the heart as it was only a week or two after I decided I couldn't support Hillary and wanted Obama rather than either/or. But it was still unnecessarily long, verbose, somewhat incoherent and rambling. A problem I have always had and have had on other recent posts.

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 02:29:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
All one needs to know about Chicago Politics... (none / 0)
In Chicago, dead people are allowed to vote for Democrats (regardless of race and class). God forbid they vote Republican.

The Daley Family and their machine have run the city into the ground.... Good Democrats that they are and all

Not since the days of Boss Tweed in the 1850s has there been such a corrupt system in place... And it is still in operation...

Now we have Obama, the most famous Chicagoan since... Al Capone? Farrakhan? Oprah? Mrs. O'Leary's Cow? The Haymarket Rioters?

Well, all I can say is that Chicago does not have a great track record when it comes to honesty in politics...

Thanks...

:)

by bobo1 on 05/13/2008 09:07:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
And you claim to be a Democrat, right? (none / 0)

"Not since the days of Boss Tweed in the 1850s has there been such a corrupt system in place... And it is still in operation..."

Hmmm, it seems like I could come up with a better example of a crooked, dishonest, election-stealing, thieving ass government crime family than the Daly's since 1850.

Oh wait!  The current Republican party led by its president and VP.

Quit pretending to be a dem, loser. 

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 09:32:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Who said I was a Dem? (none / 0)
I have NEVER claimed to be a Dem - I am an Independent at best...

If Obama were from Texas, I would certainly include the Bushies in the whole corrution patterns for that area - but he's not, he's from Chicago where we get the Daley family among countless others in the area (Its been many moons since I have followed Chicago happenings closely). Chicago is a hub of political corruption and scandal and Obama is a product of that corrupt system there - and Im sure that fact wont be ignored by the Republicans during the General Election...

Im sure that ihavenobias and a few of the other Chicagoans can give more specific names that apply here... Rezco is the only one that comes to my mind...

Dont be so sensitive, professor!!!

:)

by bobo1 on 05/13/2008 09:41:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
McCain: Hire Ken and Bobo as advisors! (none / 0)

These guys are carving out quite the platform.  McCain is going to run on high gas prices and corruption.

Two things every Republican should definitely want at the front of every voters mind come election day!

And "Who claimed you were a Dem?"  You.  Constantly.  In fact, you got all bitchy any time someone said you were a Republican.  Do you have dementia or something? 

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 09:46:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Better Check Again... (none / 0)
I have never said I was a Democrat. Do you assume just because Im not a Republican that I have to be a Democrat? I would think you would know the fallacy of that argument...

I do not need to enslave myself to one party or another. I can participate and debate without towing anyones line but my own...

Supporting McCain doesn't make sense for obvious reasons, but Obama hasnt given me any reason to support him either - Hope just aint gonna cut it when gas is 4 dollars a gallon!

If you would like to speak of Dementia, I suggest you speak to the Obama worshippers who have achieved cult like status in their quest for Hope and Change. They are the ones suffering dementia, and they are the reason McCain has a chance of winning...

:)

by bobo1 on 05/13/2008 11:35:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ok (none / 0)
Find me an Obama worshipper and I will talk to them.  I have never met one.  Online or otherwise.

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 12:24:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Latest on corruption and perception (none / 0)

In this poll from conservative Rassmussen Reports we learn that Dems are now more trusted on ALL TEN major issues in the election.

Among them is a 45%-26% edge on corruption.

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 11:12:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Not what you said (none / 0)
It seems you've reverted to your old illogic once again, bobo.

My little refresher course on Chicago political history of the 20th century was provided to correct your asinine charge of Chicago pols being "slick" and "looking down on poor whites."

The fact that you neither repudiated my assertions nor accepted that you made a mistake shows a saddening disregard for accuracy on your part.

Then, having been shown to be completely wrong you ignore that and come up with an entirely new charge, that Chicago pols are corrupt and so now Obama has to prove to you he's not corrupt. Clearly, it doesn't matter to you what is true and what's not so why bother?


And as for your blatantly absurd assertion that "The Daley Family and their machine have run the city into the ground," you really should first brush up on your knowledge of history before trying to tackle current events. Chicago is one of the only cities where standard of living has increased, where business investment has increased and where employment rates far outperform those of other major US cities (though I believe new and rising cities like Phoenix are doing even better, I did say major cities). Compare Chicago's crime rates over the last decade to cities like Detroit, New York & LA. Add in environmentally friendly redevelopment, new public spaces, revitalization of transportation insfrastructure, the slow but steady replacement of failed projects and reduction of slums and there is no way in Hell your assertion of driving "the city into the ground" holds up. I'm not going to do your research for you on this. Look it up.

I too would like there to be some reform done and have reform candidates win county and city elections, for a change. But there is a reason we've put up with this system. Because on an overall basis, they have worked for us. As long as these guys actually gain a net benefit for the City of Chicago, I'll take them over the pols of any other city in the country.

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 01:21:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I think it would be best for America (none / 0)

to elect presidents based solely on where they live and who they've met.  Voting for people based on what they've done is sooo overrated.  ;)

Do you have any actual evidence that Obama is dirty?  Don't you think that, if he was as dirty as you claim, McCain and the right wing radio would be beating him over the head with it constantly?  As of right now, they're still stuck on Wright, Ayers, his wife who hates America, and the standard "he's a socialist" mantra.  They don't even use Rezko against him, because there's really nothing there.

Wait!  I forgot, you don't ever need evidence.  It's just your opinion after all.  Forget I said anything. 

by Spencer on 05/13/2008 03:40:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
who gives a fuck (none / 0)
about a mandate.
keeping  Bush2 out of the white house is all that matters.

P.S the majority of this country lives in urban areas.

Are you just pretending to be this uninformed bobo tx?

by Chinese Democracy on 05/13/2008 02:05:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I have the count at Bush3. Just sayin' (none / 0)

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 02:08:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Math is elitist. (none / 0)
I refuse to use these "numbers" that liberals have invented to try to quantify God's creation.

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 02:24:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yea (none / 0)
Bush 3

by Chinese Democracy on 05/13/2008 09:14:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"messianic"?? (none / 0)

Please try and understand that the primary race is the place for a couple of candidates to race against each other and that ONE of them will be a winner and the other GOES HOME. The process is INTENDED to determine who is the MOST appropriate choice for the party to back. In this case, Obama ids the winner and Hillary is the LOSER who should say, "The better person won," and GO HOME.

Other than the surprise acceptance of LBJ, it is NOT the norm for the 2nd place finisher to get the VP slot. And that's a GOOD thing. The Prez-elect needs people around him he can trust, not people he has to worry about questioning his every move. Can you imagine Hillary sitting back complacently while the Prez makes a decision? I can't.


Bobo, please stop with these asinine "messianic" comments. No One thinks he is a living god - only that his is the freshest voice to come along in a few decades. We may all be getting fooled - gawd nose it's happened time and again - but at least we WANT change away from the war-mongering bleedocrats who have been in charge for the last 28 years.

I have yet to hear a GOOD reason why anyone would think Hillary more competent than Obama and I'm fairly certain that there isn't even ONE reason to vote for McCain over Obama.

Putting Hillary on the ticket would be an insult to the Obama supporters who have had to put up with her lies, innuendo, race-baiting, and collusion with Right Wing forces. That may appeal to YOU, but not to us sensible people.

by MedfordTim on 05/13/2008 12:08:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Maybe we should just give up on this (none / 0)
And establish the American Church of Obama. These hyperbole-driven charges by zombified Clintonistas are useless to refute if the people making them are all under some anti-reality spell. If we make him into the "King of America" and a messiah it will probably then be ignored by the MSM and the right-wing and they'll then treat him as a legitimate Christian.

It seems to have worked before.

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 01:28:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Everything you said was right except for this: (none / 0)
Obama's problem is that of substance, and we have yet to see any sort of hand out from the Obama camp to reassure us that they are for us too...

No.  Anyone who thinks he's substanceless has not been listening to his speeches or reading his website or paying attention to his record.

The question is, how much do we have to worry about the fuckheads?  Did we ever have their vote to begin with?

by jarett on 05/13/2008 01:12:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Jarrett... (none / 0)
How is your Thesis/Graduate project thing going? Just wondering...

Anyway, thank you for your post and the link to the Fuckhead article - Those are not the voters I am referring to, Jarrett and you know that - I am referring to the Hillary voters who aren't sold on Obama yet...

Yes Obama has speeches and policy agendas, but they have yet to this point spoken to the common (poor) white person in this country - I know this sounds somewhat odd, but -
What will Obama do for us?

What is in it for us? How will Obama prove to the working man that he is not just another elitist who will only satisfy his core constituency of Blacks and College Grads?

He hasnt done it yet, and I suspect that its gonna be hard for himat this point to convince the working class majority otherwise (especially with Hillary in the race still). I know he'll move to the right, but will it be enough?

Its not the Fuckheads, jarrett... Its the descomisados (sp) like in that Evita movie - Nobody is crying for us, and we're pissed!!!

Thanks again for your comments!

:)

by bobo1 on 05/13/2008 01:29:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Lost opportunities (none / 0)

If only Obama had taken some time to do help the poor and downtrodden in his life.  Really worked with them and got to know and understand their reality.

Oh well.  Woulda shoulda coulda, huh?

Guess we'll just have to go ahead and elect another "man of the people" like Bush and Cheney or McCain.

I swear these attacks are like mad libs.  They are pre-written and they just plug in the candidate they are againsts name.  Who cares if the argument makes even a little bit of sense.  Spin on! 

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 02:34:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Professor, again... (none / 0)
It really doesnt matter what Bush and McCain haven't done for us - the question remains -

What is Obama gonna do for us?

You gotta give the middle and the bottom something to vote for instead of just voting against Bush/McCain.

McCain isnt Bush - You Liberals better come to grips with that - more importantly, you better make a case against McCain instead of rehashing against this supposed "3rd Term" of GW... (Now granted I will never vote for McCain, but most people honestly dont see him as the evil man as I do)

Politics is not about what is right, Rich - politics is about "Man of the People" crap, and they fall for it every time its played - and your man Obama is definitely not a "Man of the People" He better start running in that direction real quick, or he will fall by the wayside and we will get that 3rd Bush term you so despise!!!

Thanks again for your comments...

:)

by bobo1 on 05/13/2008 02:51:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
of the people??????????? (none / 0)
There is no other candidate who can claim to be a "man of the people" or "woman of the people." We all know what each of these candidates actually did in their lives and what neighborhoods they lived/worked in. If this nonsense argument has any validity then Obama would clearly be the closest to the mantle of "man/woman of the people."

Regardless, if Hillary is what a "woman of the people" is, then fuck the people. They must be in the minority, I've never met any "people" like her in any of the communities I've lived/worked or gone to school in. Since those communities have mostly been lower-middle income, two-jobs per person, both parents working communities, I can definitively say Hillary would never be considered one of us.


So these "people" you're referring to, the people she is "one of" must be elite athiest shitheads who've never worked a real job in their lives; much less one where you come back limping at the end of your shift and your arms won't bend, your clothes are stuck to your skin from the sweat and your shoes squish when you walk because there's blood pooled on the bottom of them. And then you get laid off on a Friday as you're walking out the door, the cops ticket your car because you can't afford to renew your Goddamn plates, then tow or boot it because you haven't paid any of the exorbitant $200 apiece tickets you've gotten (because of the stupid city & renewal stickers you couldn't afford in the first place), no one picks up at the phone number you're supposed to call to get the damn boot removed or your car released (because what rich person gets booted? so no lawyers care and no politicians care, so why would someone properly staff the fucking agency responsible for this shit) and of course it gets broken into and they destroy your already shitty car and how do you get a job or file for unemployment now when you couldn't afford a $20 sticker and now have HUNDREDS of dollars in fees and fines and a bashed up car? And all those politicians are waiting for you to make some money so that you can pay all those fines and they can then use that cash to pay their CEO/contractor friends. If you can't make that money, that's all good too, they'll just repo whatever you own and write off the rest by claiming it on insurance or selling off the debt. It's not like they're wasting money trying to get you a job, or livable, affordable housing, or healthcare. Just as long as, if you do find a job, they can keep finding new ways to fine and ticket and tax you and have every miserable cent find its way back to their pockets, it's all good.


You understand what that's like, do you bobo? I highly doubt it, because I do. And the one thing you don't think after living like that is "man I think that conniving bitch, pretending she drinks whiskey and beer and who hasn't lived this life or walked these streets without a posse of cameras and security, is really gonna do something for me" as opposed to "none of these pieces of shit ever do anything but steal our money and give it to their friends but maybe, just maybe, that black guy, who I wouldn't have over for dinner and definately wouldn't want my daughter to date, but actually was trying to help people like me find jobs will do something"

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 04:18:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Every time you post (none / 0)

In my head you are Logan (Wolverine).

Sometimes that little fiction pays off in a big way.

See to Rich, that monologue was delivered by this guy:

Weapon X vs. the hanging chad Seriously.  Inarguable post.  Too bad we can only get mass messages through the "Rich Media Guy Fantasy Land" filter.

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 04:44:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Or is it (none / 0)

Cue suspenseful music and a Hitchcock zoom.

If I remember right, he was the director of the Weapon X program.

Now I don't think I can trust Weapon X. 

by Spencer on 05/13/2008 05:05:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wolive was a victim of the Weapon X program (none / 0)

The director was Professor Thorton.

Wait.  He's not on here, is he? Is he listening?

PRANK CALL, PRANK CALL!! 

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 06:25:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Don't get me started on comic books (none / 0)
We'll be here all night.

by jarett on 05/14/2008 02:12:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nice. I do identify with Wolvie sometimes (none / 0)
And you can trust me Spence, the subjects of the program got the Weapon X tag, not the evil behind it. Though, if it helps, you can call me James Howlett ;)

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 06:17:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nice pics by the way (none / 0)
I can't post my own pic on the site for sure now. It would totally take away from the net effect of my comments/posts. Maybe I should put the pic Rich used onto my page instead. I can see how the message would have a lot more weight coming from that guy rather than me, lol.

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 06:21:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Posts would be more effective in his voice... (none / 0)
"Maybe I should put the pic Rich used onto my page instead."


Done.

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 07:05:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Good (none / 0)
Now you just need to start saying "bub" and "I'm the best there is at what I do".  And the occasional snikt wouldn't hurt either.

by Spencer on 05/13/2008 07:36:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Also done. And done. (none / 0)
I'm gonna have to get a new nick where I can actually not disappoint people by posting in my voice with my actual pic and info, lol

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 08:09:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
He answered you. (none / 0)
Community organizer.  Civil rights attorney.  Remember?

If you're talking about meat-and-potatoes issues, he has a long list of things he talks about wanting to do in places like South Bend to jumpstart the Midwestern (for example) economy.  You just have to listen.

by jarett on 05/14/2008 02:11:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Tucker is a Tool (none / 0)
I refuse to watch Abrams or any other show when that showless blowhard is on.

by rev24 on 05/13/2008 12:38:40 AM EST

Give him some credit... (none / 0)
He did drop the bow tie.

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 12:57:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Smart move (none / 0)
Bet he is swimming in ass now.

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 01:44:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
lol, actually (none / 0)
I think I'll take that bet ;)

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 02:23:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Not A Good Night For Abrams | 50 comments (50 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: