BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama

Subject: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 15 May 08 - 08:05 AM

Was the biggest shock of the primary season.

And about the most disrespectful slap in the face given to either candidate.

This primary season sure is full of stunners. I really can't wrap my head around what the NARAL women were thinking. I really, really can't.

So much for feminist solidarity.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 May 08 - 08:37 AM

? why wouldn't they endorse him? He's the better candidate in their view... You don't think they should go for the woman just because of what's between her legs, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 15 May 08 - 08:57 AM

That kind of sexist commentary is about what I would expect around here.

If you have to ask the question "why wouldn't they", you clearly don't get what is going on. You clearly know nothing about the relationships involved here, the Clinton record on reproductive rights--you just plain don't get it.

And you are coming off like a sexist asshole with your comments.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: MaineDog
Date: 15 May 08 - 09:04 AM

This guest is a flaming troll. Lets close this thread now
MD

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 08 - 09:39 AM

NARAL??? What the hell is NARAL?

Is it the "National Association of Rabidly Angry Lesbians"?

Damn. I thought sure they would endorse Hillary! This endorsement of Obama is indeed an outrage that will not soon be forgotten.

(Now THAT's chauvinist! And insensitive too. Heh! Sorry, I just couldn't resist...)

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Peace
Date: 15 May 08 - 09:49 AM

National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Peace
Date: 15 May 08 - 10:02 AM

IMO, the notion that there is or ever was 'feminist solidarity' is wrong. People--whether women or men--vote for what they preceive will best serve their interests. Obviously, in this case, they do not perceive Hillary to be that person.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 08 - 10:05 AM

Maybe they suffer from a different set of delusions than Fantz does,...


A

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: pdq
Date: 15 May 08 - 10:05 AM

Perhaps the endorsement was actually from NASAL: National Association for the Suppression of Anal-retentive Librarians.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: irishenglish
Date: 15 May 08 - 10:14 AM

So Fantasma, if this is such a travesty, tell us how the choice was made. They are an organization, I'm sure they met, and discussed, and argued about it internally before a decision was made. YOU feel it is the wrong decision, but why is it a slap in the face to Obama? He'll take the endorsement, gladly, but it wasn't his doing now was it? I bet he was even surprised by it!

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 08 - 10:18 AM

But think how hurt McCain must be feeling over this!

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Peace
Date: 15 May 08 - 10:19 AM

The frozen food guy?

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 08 - 10:25 AM

related article?

Washington Post:

Misogyny I Won't Miss

By Marie Cocco
Thursday, May 15, 2008; Page A15

As the Democratic nomination contest slouches toward a close, it's time to take stock of what I will not miss.

I will not miss seeing advertisements for T-shirts that bear the slogan "Bros before Hos." The shirts depict Barack Obama (the Bro) and Hillary Clinton (the Ho) and are widely sold on the Internet.

I will not miss walking past airport concessions selling the Hillary Nutcracker, a device in which a pantsuit-clad Clinton doll opens her legs to reveal stainless-steel thighs that, well, bust nuts. I won't miss television and newspaper stories that make light of the novelty item.

I won't miss episodes like the one in which liberal radio personality Randi Rhodes called Clinton a "big [expletive] whore" and said the same about former vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro. Rhodes was appearing at an event sponsored by a San Francisco radio station, before an audience of appreciative Obama supporters -- one of whom had promoted the evening on the presumptive Democratic nominee's official campaign Web site.

I won't miss Citizens United Not Timid (no acronym, please), an anti-Clinton group founded by Republican guru Roger Stone.

Political discourse will at last be free of jokes like this one, told last week by magician Penn Jillette on MSNBC: "Obama did great in February, and that's because that was Black History Month. And now Hillary's doing much better 'cause it's White Bitch Month, right?" Co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski rebuked Jillette.

I won't miss political commentators (including National Public Radio political editor Ken Rudin and Andrew Sullivan, the columnist and blogger) who compare Clinton to the Glenn Close character in the movie "Fatal Attraction." In the iconic 1987 film, Close played an independent New York woman who has an affair with a married man played by Michael Douglas. When the liaison ends, the jilted woman becomes a deranged, knife-wielding stalker who terrorizes the man's blissful suburban family. Message: Psychopathic home-wrecker, begone.

The airwaves will at last be free of comments that liken Clinton to a "she-devil" (Chris Matthews, who helpfully supplied an on-screen mock-up of Clinton sprouting horns). Or those who offer that she's "looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court" (Mike Barnicle, also on MSNBC).

But perhaps it is not wives who are so very problematic. Maybe it's mothers. Because, after all, Clinton is more like "a scolding mother, talking down to a child" (Jack Cafferty on CNN).

When all other images fail, there is one other I will not miss. That is, the down-to-the-basics, simplest one: "White women are a problem, that's -- you know, we all live with that" (William Kristol of Fox News).

I won't miss reading another treatise by a man or woman, of the left or right, who says that sexism has had not even a teeny-weeny bit of influence on the course of the Democratic campaign. To hint that sexism might possibly have had a minimal role is to play that risible "gender card."

Most of all, I will not miss the silence.

I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven't publicly uttered a word of outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York. Among those holding their tongues are hundreds of Democrats for whom Clinton has campaigned and raised millions of dollars. Don Imus endured more public ire from the political class when he insulted the Rutgers University women's basketball team.

Would the silence prevail if Obama's likeness were put on a tap-dancing doll that was sold at airports? Would the media figures who dole out precious face time to these politicians be such pals if they'd compared Obama with a character in a blaxploitation film? And how would crude references to Obama's sex organs play?

There are many reasons Clinton is losing the nomination contest, some having to do with her strategic mistakes, others with the groundswell for "change." But for all Clinton's political blemishes, the darker stain that has been exposed is the hatred of women that is accepted as a part of our culture.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Peace
Date: 15 May 08 - 10:28 AM

However, a dislike of Hillary does NOT ipso facto equate to a hatred of women.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: frogprince
Date: 15 May 08 - 10:44 AM

Quite a few Americans seem to fear that Obama is extremely, dangerously, liberal. At least a few cherish the hope that, of the candidates, Obama has the bigger element of liberalism in his makeup. It may be that the NARAL people tend to the latter. It may be that they don't see either of the Dem candidates to be a threat to reproductive rights, and that they, a. consider Obama the better choice for any number of other reason, b. perceive Obama to be more electable than Clinton, and thus more apt to keep reproductive rights out of the hands of the Republicans, or some of each.

I've known any number of staunch, outspoken, feminist women by now. By far the most of them have just stood for straight-up equality, with no hatred directed toward anyone. I would see most of them as happy for the chance to vote for a woman if they believed that woman to be as good as any of the other candidates; I can't think of any of them whom I would expect to vote for Britney Spears or Ann Coulter over a male with respectable qualifications. (Yes, I know I'm reducing the point to absurdity so far as that choice of names.)

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 May 08 - 10:55 AM

Apparently a lot of NARAL state orgs do not agree with the natl. choice to back Obama over Clinton. Click Here.

I am glad we have TWO candidates whom we CAN support because they are pro-women's rights. If I choose to support the man over the woman, it has nothing to do with whether I am a feminist or not; it has to do with who I think has a better chance at winning and what our country needs the most right now.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 08 - 11:03 AM

An interesting article, Bruce. I did not think that much of the anti-Hillary sentiment was purely sexist. Looks like we can all learn. I don't think the issues surrounding her gender can be completely separated from issues surrounding her personal merit, because the two sets do intersect strongly. But the right thing to do is to address issues of personal merit without regard to whether they are some gender function or not, just as the right thing to do concerning Obama is to address the merits of the candidate without regard to where they "come from".

McCain's age is a slightly different matter, perhaps, because it can reflect on his actual qualifications. USing "senior moment" as an excuse for his flub over Iran and Iraq is hardly a reassuring excuse.

I would likewise be interested, getting back tot he thread, as to the rational that emerged in NARAL's meetings; I sympathize with and support their choice, but I would be interested in learning more about their reasons.

A

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 08 - 11:20 AM

Since both these candidates seem to have thee same position in this context, why should the organisation have felt it appropriate to come out with an endorsement in any case?
.............................

I understood from GUEST,Fantasma's previous posts that both Clinton and Obama should be seen as equally crap candidates with nothing to chooise between them, and that Fantasma's only reason for directing the attacks at the latter was because there are more Obama sympathisers on the Cat than Clinton sympathisers.

That doesn't seem to tie in with the post opening this thread which indicates a definite preference for Clinton. (Or are there two GUEST,Fantasmas ?)

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 08 - 11:41 AM

I think what bugs Fantasma is simply the fervently loyalist Obama cheerleading section here. If you were almost all cheerleading that way for Hillary instead of Obama, that would bug her too. That's my guess anyway.

********

Now, as for the "hatred for women" thing in BB's linked article...well, that's a factor in some cases certainly, but it's hardly a deciding factor.

Speaking only for myself, I actually like women better on the whole as a gender than men (despite being male), and I'm not talking about any kind of sexual attraction when I say that. The reason I like women better as a gender is that I find they are more inclined to be: responsible, honest, law-abiding, non-violent, polite, cooperative with others, and generally far more reasonable....on average...than the male gender. They mature faster, and they remain more mature...on average. They cause far less trouble. They commit far less crime. They kill far fewer people. They are the glue that holds any society together and keeps it stable and functioning, and they always have been.

I would prefer to see women in governmental positions than men...on average...because of their obvious strengths and good character traits which I have alluded to above. I have enthusiastically voted for women on many occasions in Canadian elections. I do not have the slightest hesitation in contemplating a female as leader of my country...or of any country.

But that doesn't mean any female! And it doesn't discount any male. One's gender alone does not qualify one for leadership.

I am more favorably impressed by Obama on the whole than I am by Hillary Clinton. (And I am more favorably impressed by Dennis Kucinich and his wife than I am by either Obama or Clinton, by the way!) I don't trust Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton one bit, and I don't trust the Clinton political machine. The problem for me is not Hillary's gender, but other matters altogether totally aside from her gender. In fact, her gender is somewhat of a plus, as far as it goes, but it's not the deciding factor.

Someone who is obsessed with rooting out "hatred to women" under every leaf and stone probably won't even believe my sincerity when I say the above things. Their faith in their own sense of martyrdom would perhaps not allow them to believe it, since I am a male.

Well, tough. I cannot help a mind that is incapable of helping itself.

(the above remarks are not directed at Fantasma, they were inspired by reading BB's article)

To be called sexist for not supporting Hillary Clinton is like being called racist for not supporting Obama or anti-semitic for not supporting Zionism. It's a smear, and depending on the individual who is being smeared, it may very well be a smear with utterly no basis in fact whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Peace
Date: 15 May 08 - 11:51 AM

. . . or being called anti-Arab for not supporting Hezbollah. (Just thought I'd get that in there. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: pdq
Date: 15 May 08 - 11:52 AM

"... a dislike of Hillary does NOT ipso facto equate to a hatred of women"

Nor does dislike of Barak Obama mean racism toward Black people as a whole. I would have voted for Colin Powell for president or vice-president. I will not vote for Obama, not for president, not for dog-catcher.

The Democrats whole campaign this year has been:
      
             "You don't like Hillary Clinton? What are you, a sexist?"       or      
            
             "You don't like Barak Obama? What are you, a racist?"

The Democratic Party (of which I was a member for 32 years) needs to clean house and start over.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Peace
Date: 15 May 08 - 11:54 AM

Indeed it does. But then so doesthe Republican Party!

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: pdq
Date: 15 May 08 - 11:58 AM

I always appreciate the chance to agree with you, my friend.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 08 - 12:04 PM

Good addition, Peace! ;-) Very appropriate.

And yeah, both those parties need a lot more than housecleaning. They need to be dismantled, demolished and hauled away in a dumpster.

"You don't like Hillary Clinton? What are you, a sexist?"            
            
"You don't like Barak Obama? What are you, a racist?"

"You don't like McCain? What are you, a limp-wristed unpatriotic traitor to our brave young men and women in uniform???"

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: frogprince
Date: 15 May 08 - 12:24 PM

Some people have serious misgivings about Hillary; that is about opinions, and to varying degrees is actually about her. A disturbing number of people have been eating out their own guts with festering hatred for her. That is about them, and their spiritual disorders. But even with them, I have to think that only a fraction are driven by that level of generalized hatred for women.

Things like the Hillary nutcracker and the "Ho" shirt, are profoundly foul. Had there been any chance of my voting for McCain before his cute little joke about Chelsea's parentage, I don't see how I could consider it now. But, in my experience with racism and my experience with sexism, one thing remains: I have never heard anyone say, "The only good woman is a dead woman".

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: pdq
Date: 15 May 08 - 01:11 PM

Posted today:


Subject: RE: BS: Racist T Shirt In Georgia
From: Naemanson - PM
Date: 15 May 08 - 05:52 AM

I knew the Republicans would win the 2008 elections when I heard the Democrats had a woman and a black man running. This country is too racist to elect Obama and too sexist to elect Hillary. McCain skates in to an easy win and we suffer the ill effects. Those elephants must be laughing in their martinis.



I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Peace
Date: 15 May 08 - 01:14 PM

Has the US ever given serious consideration to forming a coalition government?

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: irishenglish
Date: 15 May 08 - 01:23 PM

Gee, I wonder what else he knew pdq. Maybe he could have warned the folks in Myanmar and China. Maybe he could have told Wigan they weren't going to beat Man U. What are the current odds he's giving for McCain, because if he's that astute, I wanna lay some money down, I mean what the hell, nothings going to happen in the next 6 months to change the odds, so I might as well.

I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: frogprince
Date: 15 May 08 - 01:25 PM

Naemanson is a person with an honest opinion; a lot of people share it. If we say "case closed" when we hear that opinion expresssed, we can help make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. A lot of us believe there is evidence of at least a solid chance that that is no longer true, and we see that chance as worth going for.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 08 - 01:31 PM

PDQ:

I believe you are making a serious mistake.


A

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 08 - 01:34 PM

We'll know presently. Just wait.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 08 - 01:45 PM

In addition to John Edwards and the national NARAL office, the US Steelworker's union has just come out in support of Barack Obama.

A

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 May 08 - 01:51 PM

Well said, frogprince.

pdq, why do not choose to quote those of us who disagree with Naes? Wouldn't serve your narrow purposes, would it?

Amos is right...you made a mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: pdq
Date: 15 May 08 - 02:01 PM

Yep, If you don't vote for Obama you a screaming racist and if you don't vote for Hillary you a male chauvinist pig.

What a platform the Democrats have this year. Pretty cose the 2004 "anybody but Bush" platform.

I left the Democratic Party after 32 years because they offer nothing but hate and character assasination. No new ideas, just win by sliming your opponent.

Is that more clear as to what I meant?

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Peace
Date: 15 May 08 - 02:06 PM

Pots and kettles . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 08 - 02:12 PM

Hey, pdq! If you don't vote for McCain, you're a limp-wristed appeaser of international terrorism!

Hasn't that been more or less the basic Republican line ever since John Wayne was out of diapers? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: pdq
Date: 15 May 08 - 02:23 PM

Now yer talkin', Birdfeathers!

By the way, "appeaser of international terrorism" can be considered a policy or a concious action. Being a female or being a Black person is not a policy since the people involved have no control over it. A proper comparison would be "if you don't vote for McCain you are bigoted against short, bald White guys".

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 08 - 02:25 PM

"if you don't vote for McCain you are bigoted against short, bald White guys".


They are, you know...

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Peace
Date: 15 May 08 - 02:32 PM

I'm a short bald White guy.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 08 - 02:35 PM

Self-hatred is a terrible thing...   8-{E

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: pdq
Date: 15 May 08 - 02:38 PM

Being born with a name like Bruce probably don't help one bit.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Peace
Date: 15 May 08 - 02:39 PM

I know. That's why I intend to vote for an androgynistic hairy 7'8" candidate who promises to tattoo the first asshole that drives a blue car into a swimming pool in January. My political choices are as well thoughtout as the average voter.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 08 - 02:42 PM

Perhaps better...

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 08 - 05:19 PM

Yeah, pdq, it's a policy (or it pretends to be anyway)...but it's also total, absolute rubbish. ;-)

It's as disingenuous, phony, misleading, and manipulative as the rubbish "racism and sexism" tactics you were referring to that the Democrats use.

You see, I'm saying that they are all engaging in phony, manipulative, simple-minded rhetoric to get people to vote for them and against the other guy. ALL of them.

Here again are the three bullshit lines:

"You don't like Hillary Clinton? What are you, a sexist?"            
            
"You don't like Barak Obama? What are you, a racist?"

"You don't like McCain? What are you, a limp-wristed unpatriotic traitor to our brave young men and women in uniform??? An appeaser of terrorism?"

Bullshit + Bullshit squared + Bullshit cubed = BULLSHIT

You have 2 huge parties in the USA, pdq, who aren't worth their weight in horse manure, they both lie and deceive continually, and no one with a conscience should vote for either one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Peace
Date: 15 May 08 - 05:21 PM

That would then leave those with NO conscience to decide for the rest. Horns of a dilemma.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 08 - 05:30 PM

Of course, even with no parties, the people with power and money and media control would still be able to decide who they wanted to put into office so as to act as their agents and carry out their wishes.

In fact in such a case, they might even have an easier job in controlling the way people voted.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Peace
Date: 15 May 08 - 05:31 PM

Ain't THAT the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 08 - 05:37 PM

"That would then leave those with NO conscience to decide for the rest."

Wow. That is the best in-a-nutshell description of how the system already works right now that I've heard yet, Peace.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Peace
Date: 15 May 08 - 05:39 PM

Ya know, LH, you and I agree on this completely. I think both those parties are useless.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 15 May 08 - 05:45 PM

Back to the actual subject of the thread. katlaughing, I hadn't seen that article, thanks for the link.

That was my understanding of how all the abortion rights orgs were going to play it this year, rather than risk dividing their base.

This endorsement is, to me, just shocking and a really, really hateful and spiteful thing to do. Somebody at that office must really have it in for Clinton to do this to her.

I'm not even a Clinton supporter.

But I am a staunch defender of abortion and reproductive rights, which is why this political endorsement so disturbs me. And without even consulting the affiliates?

It just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser. Someone's vendetta must be behind it, is all I can think.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: pdq
Date: 15 May 08 - 05:47 PM

Little Hawk,

You are close enough to the truth on most of those points that is not an arguement. I do see the Republican Party getting an anal exam every day on Mudcat and the Democratic Party getting a free pass.

Not one person (other than me) has mentioned the fact that Nancy Pelosi's father was "Big Tommy" D'Alesando, mob boss of Baltimore. Her brother was his replacement, and Nancy was actively involved in book keeping for those two mobsters.

Corrupt? That seems to be a term that means "White, middle class businessman".

Meanwhile, William "Cold Cash" Jefferson in not going to pay for his taking bribes at all. Not even a censure by the US House of Representatives he has disgraced. This ain't equal justice

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Peace
Date: 15 May 08 - 05:54 PM

True, pdq. It isn't. It should be, however. (Speaking for myself, not for by buddy in Ontario.) One question: Any guess as to how many pardons Bush will hand out just before he leaves office? (And that is NOT meant to in anyway denigrate your Republican affiliation. I know you to be hard-nosed but good and fair.)

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: pdq
Date: 15 May 08 - 06:06 PM

How many pardons will George W. Bush grant at the end of his term? Probably a fraction of the number Clinton did, and none will be "pay for pardon" cases as were those arranged by both of Hillary's brothers (Roddam).

History will be kind to George W. Bush, as it has been to Eisenhower, Reagan, and even Nixon. People in the news media can say anything they want and do it for political purposes. They are seldom held to account for what they say. Historians are a much more unbiased and responsible lot.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Peace
Date: 15 May 08 - 06:08 PM

Well, you're loyal. And that's a good quality.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 08 - 06:18 PM

pdq, I understand your frustration at how differently the Republicans are treated from the Democrats on this forum. If it's any comfort to you, my feeling is that the Democrats could give even Nero or Caligula some lessons in corruption... ;-)

(The Republicans, on the other hand, could give Mussolini some lessons in chest-pounding martial bluster at times...however, their armed forces are considerably more dangerous than his were.)

The thing about Nancy Pelosi is certainly interesting! I didn't know about that.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 15 May 08 - 06:28 PM

Reverend Rong had an epiphany in which Jesus, his half brother Mohammed and their uncle Budda all endorsed Barak.
There is yet no word from the holy ghost.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 08 - 06:39 PM

LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 May 08 - 10:15 PM

Janet--

"Someone at that office must have it in for her". Right. Anything you say. You'll fit in real well around here. There are an amazing number of senseless conspiracy theory fans--no pun intended, perish the thought.

Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that the positions of Obama and Hillary are virtually identical on Roe v Wade etc. And that Hillary (with Bill's able assistance) has run a needlessly divisive campaign, even stooping to racist appeal--though she now admits that last remark of hers was stupid. Now that she's established who the reliable white candidate is.

And in spite of all that, she's floating down the drain. And quite a few sensible Democrats think it's time to get to the general election campaign. And some of those sensible Democrats may be at NARAL.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 May 08 - 11:42 PM

"Not one person (other than me) has mentioned the fact that Nancy Pelosi's father was "Big Tommy" D'Alesando, mob boss of Baltimore. Her brother was his replacement, and Nancy was actively involved in book keeping for those two mobsters." pdq

I'm sure that you, being an honorable man, pdq, have documented information about these allegations although I haven't found any.

All I find is that D'Alesandro was in Congress and then a several-term mayor of Baltimore.

Can you direct me to the correct links?

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: irishenglish
Date: 16 May 08 - 03:34 PM

I agree Ebbie-I looked too and couldn't find anything. Hard to be mayor and mob boss at the same time though I should think.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 May 08 - 03:54 PM

The traditional scenario in movies is that the gang boss has the mayor in his back pocket. Or occasionally it's the other way round.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: pdq
Date: 16 May 08 - 03:59 PM

And sometimes they are the same person.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: irishenglish
Date: 16 May 08 - 04:03 PM

pdq, since ebbie and I haven't found documentation, can you give us some? I'm not being a wiseass, but the only thing I found on this was mention on a website called shelleyrepublican, or something like that. I went through several internet bios for both Pelosi and her father, and found nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 May 08 - 06:22 PM

I can't recall a movie in which that was the case pdq. But if there's a real life case of it happening that's more interesting. Tell us about it then.

And did the man have a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction as well?

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 May 08 - 06:34 PM

If he was a Mafioso, I think it would be more likely to be a stockpile of weapons of individual destruction. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: pdq
Date: 16 May 08 - 07:04 PM

The terms 'mob', 'organized crime' and 'Mafia' are different. I believe the latter is limited to Italy, although the Mafia has sent some of their little helpers to the US over the years.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: irishenglish
Date: 16 May 08 - 07:30 PM

So pdq, where did you find this out, since I can't find any specific evidence as to Pelosi's father?

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Peace
Date: 16 May 08 - 07:34 PM

About Pelosi's dad.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: irishenglish
Date: 16 May 08 - 07:45 PM

Yes Peace, that is all the stuff about her father that I saw as well. However it does not address any of what pdq is saying about his alleged mafia ties. (And as long as we are being so precise, it has always been mafia/mob as being one in the same. I have never heard anyone claim them to be different. Organized crime is the action they perform)

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 08 - 07:46 PM

If Obama is ahead, look for threads trashing him.

If Hillary is ahead, look for threads trashing her.

The whole point of GUEST,FantasyWorld's various exercises is that he/she/it wants you to vote for some guy named Ralph.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: irishenglish
Date: 16 May 08 - 07:56 PM

Ralph McTell is running for President?

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: pdq
Date: 16 May 08 - 07:57 PM

Common sense suggests that anyone who posts information damning the most powerful woman in the world is going to be in big trouble. The websites from her pre-speaker days are gone. No server is going to stand up to the legal challenges. Remember, if he had been convicted in court the site would have less to worry about. People who have not followed he ascension over the last 25 years or so don't know much about her.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 May 08 - 08:01 PM

So perhaps he was a werewolf too. I mean it'd be dangerous to say that either, but it doesn't mean it's not true.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: irishenglish
Date: 16 May 08 - 08:06 PM

That's in pdq? State something that only you have stated and no one has picked up on, and that's it? Missing websites? Legal challenges to what you claim is fact? Cmon man, I was expecting at least one article with some kind of allegations. Sorry, record stands, US Representative, mayor of Baltimore, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: frogprince
Date: 16 May 08 - 09:13 PM

Hey, let's face it; the guy was an Italian politician; what else do you have to have spelled out for you?







(And yes, I'm being facetious.)

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Peace
Date: 16 May 08 - 09:16 PM

Parenthetically, are you aware that facetious is one of two words in English in which the five vowels appear in order? Six if you wish to include 'facetiously'.

OK, sorry for the drift. Now, back to yer regularly programmed thread.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 May 08 - 10:02 PM

I sometimes say 'facetiously'. Peace. :)

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 May 08 - 10:09 PM

Geez, pdq, you seem to have stirred up quite a hornet's nest here with your allegations about Nancy Pelosi and her family.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: pdq
Date: 16 May 08 - 10:12 PM

Yep, it's a dirty job but someone has to do it!

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 May 08 - 10:34 PM

And we know you're the man for the job, pdq,--when unsupported smearing is to be done-- (though Rig is also no slouch--far be it from me to disparage his accomplishments in this field.)

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 May 08 - 11:43 AM

Too bad you and Rig don't live across the street from each other, Ron. You could moon each other daily through the 2nd story windows, give the finger sign when passing on the street, and sneakily put bumper stickers on each other's cars saying "You're following an idiot". ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 07:12 AM

LH--

Slight difference, LH. Surprised you haven't noted it. I provide evidence, facts, and sources. He is, it seems, allergic to them.

Wonder if your last observation has any relationship to the fact that I have called you on the same lack, when you like to go on one of your "world is controlled by big business, which owns all the political parties, and we are just helpless pawns" binges.

I will call it the way I see it.

And the way I see it there is an amazing amount of enthusiasm for conspiracy theories and pointless cynicism around here, by intelligent, well-informed, articulate people who should know better.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 08 - 05:25 PM

Ron, why should I spend hours and hours of my time, which is valuable to me, hunting down reams of "facts" and "sources" to appease you, when I already know that it wouldn't do a particle of good...because you are unappeasable. LOL!!! You are, face it. I'd have to be damned silly to let you control and dictate my online activities in that fashion to utterly no purpose...and no benefit to anyone.

No one can change your mind with any facts or sources, Ron. You would reject them if you didn't like them, and you would find other "facts" and sources that you like better. My sources would not appease you in the least, although they work fine for me and many others. Your mind is already set in stone. You already know it all, so no one can tell you anything. I know that and so does anyone else who has engaged in these repetitive arguments with you.

Don't make me laugh. ;-) I am not here to act as a puppet for your every whim, or play your little mindgames, and I don't give a tinker's damn about your silly, pompous demands to other people to "prove" this or that thing to you. It's just a bunch of egotistical posturing on your part, and it doesn't matter anyway.

Suppose I were ever able to "prove" anything to you. It's highly unlikely that could ever happen! Well, if it did ever happen, it wouldn't change anything. It wouldn't accomplish anything at all. Life would go on and no one would ever care that I proved something to Ron Davies...and why ought they to?

Just say what you believe and talk about what you like. Fine with me. And I'll say what I believe and talk about what I like. If we disagree, then we disagree. So what? Neither one of us is required to PROVE anything to anyone, because nobody gives a damn if we do or not anyway, and no one ever will.

Your opinions don't matter, Ron. Mine don't either. You're just another person who likes hearing himself talk, who types a bunch of demands and polite insults online then sits back and preens himself, thinking how very clever he is, and I know that. I am unimpressed and uninterested in proving anything to you, because it's useless. I talk here simply because I like to express myself, and I don't CARE if you agree with or believe what I say.

If you are similarly unimpressed by what I say, that's fine. No problem. I don't mind, because it doesn't matter.

I will never ask you to PROVE anything you say on this forum, because,

1. It doesn't matter what you say.
2. I'm not so pompous as to constantly demand PROOF of things other people say. I respect them enough to disagree without then feeling I have the right to consign them to the category of "village idiot".

But you are that pompous as to constantly demand PROOF of things other people say, as if this were a federal court case here and something vital was to to won or lost by it. Nothing vital is to be won or lost by it. Nobody cares. Nobody ever will. You take yourself way too seriously, Ron, but mo one else around here is very likely to make that mistake.

So I pick on you from time to time because your utter pomposity and the obvious, sneering contempt you direct toward anyone of a differing opinion to yours simultaneously irritates and amuses me...depending on what mood I am in. You have given me some darn good laughs in that fashion, so it ain't all bad. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 08:33 PM

Just try a few actual sources for your assertions, LH. You might be surprised at how much your credibility improves.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 08:35 PM

And not just with me.

Subject: RE: BS: NARAL Endorsement of Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 09:02 PM

LH--

It is, honestly, perplexing. You are a very intelligent, well-read, articulate person--probably one of the smartest on Mudcat. And therefore it's mystifying why you hold so strongly to such a simplistic view of politics and the world economy.