BS: Obama's goose is cooked

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 04:18 PM

Did you ever hear about the man who couldn't be blackmailed? Because the things other people tried to hide, he bragged about?

I admit I am more scandalized by those who make war without goal than I am about people who have consensual sex. The one is not my business, the other is *everyone's* business. And if you don't know which is which.

And I still don't know where the threads are or what was posted as people "laughed, joked and revelled".

And Dick, to say- if you mean it- that you wouldn't buy a book that was written "for profit", what in the world are you talking about?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 04:02 PM

I might also point out for anyone watching, or keeping track of such things, that I just got post #100.

I'm just that good.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 04:01 PM

"I suppose it depends what you mean by "social conservatuves"

No it doesn't, MofH. You're trying to find a crack in my premise by looking for some obscure exception and adding (for good measure) semantic confusion. It doesn't change a thing. Democrats time and time again weather storms of scandal brought on by their sexual behavior and/or drug use. Republicans NEVER do. You might find an exception. I doubt it. But unless you're trying to just be contrarian, the evidence of what I'm saying is obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 03:56 PM

I suppose it depends what you mean by "social conservatuves" - try this for some "social conservatives" who don't seem to fall into that neat analysis - Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace Or Google on "Libertarian Conservatives" for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 03:47 PM

It's not like I'm exposing something that isn't readily evident. Democrats can run in spite of personal vices. Republicans cannot. That is because Democrats merely need to appeal to the more liberal, while Republicans need to appeal to a large number of social conservatives in order to win.

This is silly. It has been evidenced over and over. Clinton's scandal was not even scandalous to his liberal constituency. They cheer blowjobs in the whitehouse. They laughed, joked, revelled in a president who "gets it" (and "gets some").

More to the comparative point -- Studds, having actually HAD sex with pages suffered not at all at the hands of his liberal constituency. Foley, on the other hand, lost his seat and dragged others down with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 03:36 PM

Are you really saying John, that there aren't a fair number of "conservatives" in your country who are quite keen on using recreational drugs and indulging in promiscuous sex? And a fair number of pretty puritanical "liberals"?

I would suggest that attitudes on things like that just don't coincide neatly with voting intentions.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 03:34 PM

Are you really saying John, that there aren't a fair number of "conservatives" in your country who are quite keen on using recreational drugs and indulging in promiscuous sex? And a fair number of pretty oputitabnical "liberals"?

I would suggest that attitudes on things like that just don't coincide neatly with voting intentions.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 03:31 PM

That was my post on Date: 17 Feb 07 - 02:40 PM


Standard #1:
"Obama was in college at the time. Obama admits it. Obama is clear eyed."

Standard #2:
"Bush was 40 years old before he 'saw the light', hardly the stuff of self-termed "youthful indiscretions." Bush tries to hide it. Bush's eyes are the window to his soul- and his soul is badly flawed."

Standard #1: Cocaine users should be in college and admit it.

Standard #2: Cocaine users cannot be 40 years old, not wite a book confessing to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 03:31 PM

John, you have a really warped and inaccurate idea of what went on during the "anti-Vietnam war years" and how most people--including the most liberal of liberals--behaved back then. There was indeed a lot of drug use and promiscuity back then (compared to both earlier and later times), but nowhere near as much as many people like to think. I was there, and I know what was going on. There was also a very large natural-foods, no-drugs movement among the "hippies" back then, but that's not quite as salacious, so it gets ignored a lot.

But the idea of a connection between the "drug culture" and those with liberal viewpoints makes for a convenient (and totally spurious) stereotype to attach to persons whose statements one disagrees with.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 03:09 PM

see what I get for using the clever underlines?

dang when are the members of this forum going to get editing capability like is offered at EVERY other forum on the internet?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 03:07 PM

"Drug use and sexual promiscuity seem to top the conservatives' "hate parade" and are fastened on with a seemingly ferocious joy (unless, of course, one of their chosen people gets caught—say, Rush Limbaugh or Mark Foley)."

No, actually that's a backwards way of looking at what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are still some conservatives who did not learn the lesson of the Clinton years -- the lesson being that there is no scandal -- sexual or drug-related -- that will outrage the liberal base enough to cause political damage to a liberal. It is because sexual promiscuity is accepted as a given in human behavior, and drug use was so pervasive among the liberals growing up in the anti-VietNam-war years, that's it's hard for them to be that outraged by that behavior either.

But because conservatives include among their numbers many who are (I just had to do one of those clever underlines too) outraged by both recreational drug use AND promiscuous sex, they still think they can "gotcha!" a liberal with news of sex or drug use. They cannot. Only those for whom conservatives vote are at risk from that behavior.

It is a double standard created -- not by liberal's lack of standard -- but by conservatives having standards. That is why DUH Foley is not in office anymore but Studds served his whole term.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 02:52 PM

Our more conservative friends certainly have some amazing flights of imagination about what they think liberals find acceptable (implying that said liberals find these things acceptable because they all do them themselves). Drug use and sexual promiscuity seem to top the conservatives' "hate parade" and are fastened on with a seemingly ferocious joy (unless, of course, one of their chosen people gets caught—say, Rush Limbaugh or Mark Foley).

For the record:   I used to smoke (cigarettes), but I quit 29 years ago. I drank unhealthy amounts of coffee, but I seem to have suffered no lasting ill effects. I now drink tea, with an occasional coffee (gourmet blends only). I used to drop into the Blue Moon Tavern for a beer or two after an evening's teaching. Now, I may have a beer with friends on a warm summer afternoon, or drink a little wine with meals when we have guests. Those are my "recreational" drugs. Beyond that, I take 2.5 mg. of Norvasc every morning (a prescription drug to control blood pressure—not unusual at my age) and an occasional Acetaminophen.

On one occasion in 1964, when a joint started getting passed around at a party I was attending (an increasing happenstance at the time), after long resistance, I decided to see what all the shouting was about. The only effect it had on me was to make be dizzy for a few minutes and it left a foul taste in my mouth. That was enough for me, thank you. I never tried it again. Nor have I ever tried any other illegal drug. I'm quite sure, however, that if I ran for office, someone would be sure to dig out my "extensive marijuana use."

Although I reject easy labels, I can see why some people tend to cram me into the pigeon-hole marked "Liberal." I think war is the worst possible failure in foreign policy and diplomacy and should resorted to only when attacked by another nation, and it should be waged only against the nation that initiated the attack. Beyond that, I think people (including businessmen and politicians—who should not be the same people) should be honest, open, and fair-minded. I also think that the government has certain responsibilities to its citizens at large, not just to special interest groups.

That's all it takes to get you branded a "liberal cry-baby" these days. No matter how really conservative your views actually happen to be.

Unless someone comes along whom I deem a better candidate, I will probably vote for Barack Obama. But it's early days yet, and lots can happen between now and then.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 02:44 PM

"Sheesh. I must have missed that. Please direct me to a thread where this occurred?"

I don't think I have to. I think you know I'm right. And I think you know it wouldn't be that hard to find examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 02:40 PM

I never said he wrote a books in order to confess. I said he wrote a book AND confessed.

Where did you get the idea that I did?

I would not buy the book nor do I put credence in books which are written for profit.

I think Old man Bush was the only one that denied George used cocaine.

What did Obama's Daddy say?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 02:17 PM

"...in fact, here that behavior was praised." John Hardly

Sheesh. I must have missed that. Please direct me to a thread where this occurred?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 02:04 PM

Good grief. This is a site full of old hippie-types who cut their adolescent teeth on recreational drug use. There wasn't a single bad thing said about Clinton's having an underling servicing him on her knees -- in fact, here that behavior was praised.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 01:56 PM

Able....Absolutely facsinating what you can decide about Hillary's knowlege & abilities and state so confidently, with little clarification! I have heard her speak & be interviewed on many occasions, and it seems to me she knew quite a lot about the world.

I can't imagine what she has said that indicate she will "...cause young men's blood to flow."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 01:49 PM

No, John Hardly, I do NOT agree. The thinking people I know are for the message born out of the ideals that Obama represents and would vote for any person who embodied them are overwhemingly most definitely anti-drug use. In fact- and oddly, to me - most of the thinking people I know seldom use even aspirin.

This may not have been true for some of them in the past; that is somethng I don't know, in most cases, but I think that is the point: Wisdom develops from learning.

So where is your "very large and meaningful" constituency? And I'm not speaking of stereotypes here but the people whom YOU know- it is easy to spout rhetoric but only opinions that have en element of knowledge within them are worth promulgating.


As for sexual promiscuity, as long as you include the male sex when you talk about it, I will be ready to discuss promiscuity.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 01:27 PM

that woman's ignorance of the world could fill an entire library

For example?

As against Dubya? Well, maybe he's not quite fair competition for anyone who can read without moving their lips. But as against most other members of your Senate.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: able
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 01:14 PM

My sympathies to America in it's search for a new leader, the choices never seem to be all that good, but, eventually do find a leader and this person usually grows into the job. Whoever it is, I can only hope it isn't Hillary, that woman's ignorance of the world could fill an entire library. Ignorance is not bliss, it is a hazard to the whole world. She has far too many personal things on her agenda that she wants to enforce on others, and if she tries, the blood will flow and your young men will pay a huge price.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 12:55 PM

All I have read about the USA indicates that it would also be true to say:

"A very large and meaningful part of Bush's (or any other Republican candidate, for that matter) potential constituency (those who would vote for him) find no fault in recreational cocaine use. A very large and meaningful part of Obama's potential constituency (those who would vote for him) find fault in recreational cocaine use.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 12:45 PM

you don't think it's so?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 12:39 PM

"Standard #1: Obama + cocaine = acceptable

Standard #2: Bush + cocaine = not acceptable" Dick

Obama was in college at the time. Obama admits it. Obama is clear eyed.

Bush was 40 years old before he 'saw the light', hardly the stuff of self-termed "youthful indiscretions." Bush tries to hide it. Bush's eyes are the window to his soul- and his soul is badly flawed.

"Standard#1:
Obama writes book for personal gain and confesses cocaine use = Acceptable.

Standard #2:
Bush does not write a book for personal gain confessing cocaine use = unacceptable." Dick

Where did you get the idea that Obama wrote a book (actually TWO books) in order to confess cocaine use? Have you read either one of them?

"A very large and meaningful part of Obama's potential constituency (those who would vote for him) find no fault in recreational cocaine use. A very large and meaningful part of Bush's (or any othe Republican candidate, for that matter) potential constituency (those who would vote for him) find fault in recreational cocaine use.

Ditto sexual promiscuity." John Hardly

And you know this- how?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 12:28 PM

dickey,

It's quite simple. A very large and meaningful part of Obama's potential constituency (those who would vote for him) find no fault in recreational cocaine use. A very large and meaningful part of Bush's (or any othe Republican candidate, for that matter) potential constituency (those who would vote for him) find fault in recreational cocaine use.

Ditto sexual promiscuity.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 12:14 PM

"bald-faced hypocritical liar about it"

How so?

Standard#1:
Obama writes book for personal gain and confesses cocaine use = Acceptable.

Standard #2:
Bush does not write a book for personal gain confessing cocaine use = unacceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 11:15 AM

No double standard atall, Dickey. It's because Shrub is such a bald-faced hypocritical liar about it, and Obama is honest and forthright about it. That's why.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 10:39 AM

... so what hope is there for America? Beats me.

Beats me too, Bruce. Wish it were otherwise. Never said I was a fan of Hillary's, who, if she is ultimately the Dems candidate in 08, will only insure a Republican victory.

"It ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it..."

More to the point, Kevin, it ain't what you say [to get elected], its what you do [once you are]. With Obama talking out of both sides of his mouth, its hard to tell what he really believes or intends.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 10:25 AM

Standard #1: Obama + cocaine = acceptable

Standard #2: Bush + cocaine = not acceptable

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 05:17 PM

"the important role trades unions have to play in building and maintaining a decent society."

Funny - that's why they started up - out of a reaction to selfish bastardry by the employers....

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 01:53 PM

There are two tricks in political rhetoric. One is to sell moderate policies to people who are disillusioned with moderate policies, by dressing them up in militant rhetoric. The other is to sell radical policies to people who are scared of radical policies by dressing them up as moderate and consensual.

My feeling, listening to that speech, is that Obama may be aiming to do the latter of those. That's within the USA context of course - in most places round the world those kind of "radical policies" would be seen as very moderate and consensual indeed.

I noted for example where he specifically tipped his hat, so to speak, to the important role trades unions have to play in building and maintaining a decent society.

"It ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it..."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: Peace
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 01:48 PM

You can keep the sarcasm, mg. We have the same problem in Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 01:05 PM

Only the faint and dismal hope that people so astute as yourself will come down here and save us. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: Peace
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 12:41 PM

Greg F, I read it. Sorry not to have commented before. In some ways--well, one fundamental one--I agree with the writer. Concensus does bring things to a homogenized politic. It can lead to watered-down health care, and it's often the old 'you drop the idea of a decent wage and we'll help you pass the health legislation (slightly amended) that you want' game that two-party politics has played for a freakin' century now. However, Hilary is so sucky with everything that there's no hope for the USA there--unless it wants more of the same it's had for decades now. Edwards may have something to add, but he'd need votes to add it. IMO, the Democrats deserve to disappear as a party, but thne I think that of Republicans too. Bastards both of 'em. They were in bed together quiclky enough to do with Iraq, and the Dems didn't seem to object to the Homeland Security Act, so what hope is there for America? Beats me.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 12:16 PM

Please don't mention his middle name.

Ted Kennedy said Obama's name wrong 4 times in a row while on camera.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: Mr Fox
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 11:59 AM

Given the average American voter (Hey, c'mon they voted for The Shrub didn't they?) all Obama's opposition will have to do is put up a load of posters with a picture of him and the legend:

"HIS NAME RHYMES WITH OSAMA".

Game over.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: John Hardly
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 09:33 AM

Date: 15 Feb 07 - 09:52 AM

Interesting article, Greg F.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 09:16 AM

Anybody read that article I posted?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 08:33 AM

"like it was somehow important. "

... like the political party, rather than the ideas....

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: kendall
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 08:26 AM

It says quite a lot about our society when a persons color is even mentioned, like it was somehow important.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 07:56 AM

"All American elections are way too long, but this one is going to be just plain ridiculous. "

Think only about the election, and DON'T MENTION THE WAR!




I did, but I think I got away with it....




;-P

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 01:33 AM

Obama will inspire the youth of America and thats a good thing.

Whether anything will change in the U.S., is another matter. Obama, Hillary and Bush all vow to protect Israel and all three will vie for the Jewish vote in America.

Without a doubt, the Dems have more interest in health and education at home but the question is, will either of them have any money to do anything about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 09:57 PM

But the same thing can be said, quite accurately, about Fox News Service. "Fair and Balanced" my ***!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 09:27 PM

"I am all for getting rid of the 95% of public/political discourse that is this horrible, blog-driven, conspiracy-behind-every-public-issue nonsense that passes for political awareness these days. Where shooting down an opponent's ideas is the goal that has totally replaced having ideas in the first place."

I agree with that 100%

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 08:21 PM

All American elections are way too long, but this one is going to be just plain ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: Peace
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 07:57 PM

LOL

Hi, Doug. And you are right, it will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 07:57 PM

You got that one right, DougR.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: DougR
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 07:56 PM

It's going to be a very long two years.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 06:33 PM

and I do not think we show nearly enough respect to people of multi-ethnic backgrounds and I also think we do not show nearly enough respect for people of any minority or majority group to think their own thoughts and come to their own opinions and not be cowtowing to anyone. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 06:30 PM

The question isn't whether the black population will vote for Obama if he is the candidate, but whether they will show enough support to beat (oh please please do) Hillary in the primaries. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's goose is cooked
From: Barry Finn
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 06:16 PM

I think it's criminal that it's just Feb of 2007 & all the focus is on a campain that's gonna happen in Nov of 2008 more that a year & a half, give us a break, please. I know they need the early jump for campain money but I'd rather limit the money & where it comes from & get on with the business of running/ruining the country now & see how they do for the next year. Th next year is gonna need & take all the best of what we've got to survive, let's see who's gonna shine first. Fine, annonce that they're running & get back to the job at hand. I'd like to see Hillary & Obama but I don't like their stall on the war, I want to see more of what they're doing now & less of what they're gonna do latter. Let the 1/2 Black shit & the Swift Boater's trash sink in the mean time, that's all a waste of air space & they're only preahing to their choirs. It's even troublesome that any of this deserves any air play. Let their actions speak while they can. We can wallow though the stink later & the less time spent on it the better. DOn't drag this out, it only hurts us all.

Barry