Post by: Manedwolf on August 28, 2008, 05:53:25 AM
From Kennedy's speech:
Quote
Ive seen him connect with people from every walk of life and with Senators on both sides of the aisle. With every person he meets, every crowd he inspires, and everyone he touches, he generates new hope that our greatest days as a nation are still ahead, and this generation of Americans, like others before us, can unite to meet our own rendezvous with destiny.
Just capitalize Him there, and the Dems will be all set...
Post by: lacoochee on August 28, 2008, 06:44:32 AM
In Germany it took losing a war, communist insurgencies, the great depression and utter desperation to get the German people to agree to the adulation of a POLITICIAN.
In this US it took 1 quarter of the economy barely growing (the seconds quarter grew at 3%), winning a war in both Afghanistan and Iraq with historically insignificant casualties and high gas prices?? and 40% of the population is willing to worship a POLITICIAN?
Are we really that weak? Maybe it's getting close to time for the reset button on this mess.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 28, 2008, 06:45:55 AM
Wow, add some pillars of light around the stadium and a bunch of adorers wearing the same shirt, take pictures in black and white and we would all recognize the venue. Astounding...
In Germany it took losing a war, communist insurgencies, the great depression and utter desperation to get the German people to agree to the adulation of a POLITICIAN.
In this US it took 1 quarter of the economy barely growing (the seconds quarter grew at 3%), winning a war in both Afghanistan and Iraq with historically insignificant casualties and high gas prices?? and 40% of the population is willing to worship a POLITICIAN? Are we really that weak?
Maybe it's getting close to time for the reset button on this mess.
In Germany it took losing a war, communist insurgencies, the great depression and utter desperation to get the German people to agree to the adulation of a POLITICIAN.
In this US it took 1 quarter of the economy barely growing (the seconds quarter grew at 3%), winning a war in both Afghanistan and Iraq with historically insignificant casualties and high gas prices?? and 40% of the population is willing to worship a POLITICIAN?
Are we really that weak? Maybe it's getting close to time for the reset button on this mess.
75,000 people are paying up to $1000 a ticket to adore him at this stadium event.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 06:51:19 AM
Quote
and 40% of the population is willing to worship a POLITICIAN?
No, 40% of the population is willing to VOTE for him. THe amount of actual worshippers is much lower, I suspect.
Post by: French G. on August 28, 2008, 07:12:48 AM
Looks like the faithful have already gathered! 
Post by: lacoochee on August 28, 2008, 07:21:38 AM
Bet's on the number of lighters or candles that will be held up during the Sermon from The Rocky Mountains...
Maybe 40% is to high but it's a big chunk anyways.
Post by: MrRezister on August 28, 2008, 08:02:47 AM
Just let him descend from the clouds.
Post by: Tallpine on August 28, 2008, 08:11:25 AM
Who needs an elevator?
Just let him descend from the clouds.
Just let him descend from the clouds.
Heck, I would just like to see him ascend into the clouds
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 28, 2008, 08:33:17 AM
Who needs an elevator?
Just let him descend from the clouds.
Just let him descend from the clouds.
Heck, I would just like to see him ascend into the clouds
Well, his head is already up there.
Post by: Angel Eyes on August 28, 2008, 10:18:52 AM
Well, his head is already up there.
His head is definitely "up" somewhere ...
Post by: Scout26 on August 28, 2008, 10:20:06 AM
Now in a new friendly, non-threatening package.
Post by: Nick1911 on August 28, 2008, 10:25:49 AM
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on August 28, 2008, 10:51:48 AM
Quite literally. He cited an article on the Washington Post and mentioned the guy's name, though I can't remember it right now.
The Hitler references are a bit weak, IMO. I hate the guy almost as much as I hate McCain, but he ain't Hitler. That stage looks nothing like Hitler's stage, either. Hitler's amphitheatre in the provided picture is an imposing structure several hundred meters long, representing the strength of the reich, not necessarily that of Hitler himself. Obama's stage looks like the cheap off-Broadway styrofoam prop that it is, and sits in a small corner of a football field, designed to put focus on Obama, not on the aparatus he wishes to pilot as President.
Post by: charby on August 28, 2008, 01:01:48 PM
Post by: Northwoods on August 28, 2008, 01:14:22 PM
so who is thinking "Et tu Brutus?"
Hilary and Bill.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 01:35:24 PM
so who is thinking "Et tu Brutus?"
Not me.
Hillary may or may not be thinking 'Et tu, brute?' though.
Post by: MechAg94 on August 28, 2008, 03:14:34 PM
Derek Smalls: Can I raise a practical question at this point? Are we gonna do "Stonehenge" tomorrow?
David St. Hubbins: *NO*, we're not gonna @#%#$$# do "Stonehenge"!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXGbwIkvh38
Post by: French G. on August 28, 2008, 03:30:37 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 03:35:30 PM
AZ Redhawk, it's not about the stage, it is about the audience. Same blind trust/obedience, same rapture in the theater of a charismatic figure distorting a nation's destiny to his own perverse scheme. I don't think Obama=Hitler, I just think his followers would have turned in every Jew on the block if he said to do it. They have forgotten America as much as Hitler's people forgot their basic human decency.
Read up about the excitement in Washington on the day of Old Hickory's inauguration.
Post by: longeyes on August 28, 2008, 04:47:14 PM
Quote
In Germany it took losing a war, communist insurgencies, the great depression and utter desperation to get the German people to agree to the adulation of a POLITICIAN.
In this US it took 1 quarter of the economy barely growing (the seconds quarter grew at 3%), winning a war in both Afghanistan and Iraq with historically insignificant casualties and high gas prices?? and 40% of the population is willing to worship a POLITICIAN? Are we really that weak?
Maybe it's getting close to time for the reset button on this mess.
In this US it took 1 quarter of the economy barely growing (the seconds quarter grew at 3%), winning a war in both Afghanistan and Iraq with historically insignificant casualties and high gas prices?? and 40% of the population is willing to worship a POLITICIAN? Are we really that weak?
Maybe it's getting close to time for the reset button on this mess.
Obamaism isn't the New Nazism; it's what PRODUCES Nazism. It is the soft, mindless anteroom to the real, brutal thing itself. Obama is the culmination of four decades of unreason, narcissism, and a too easy life built on all the wrong things. But nature abhors a vacuum, especially this type of vacuum.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 04:50:35 PM
Quote
In Germany it took losing a war, communist insurgencies, the great depression and utter desperation to get the German people to agree to the adulation of a POLITICIAN.
In this US it took 1 quarter of the economy barely growing (the seconds quarter grew at 3%), winning a war in both Afghanistan and Iraq with historically insignificant casualties and high gas prices?? and 40% of the population is willing to worship a POLITICIAN? Are we really that weak?
Maybe it's getting close to time for the reset button on this mess.
In this US it took 1 quarter of the economy barely growing (the seconds quarter grew at 3%), winning a war in both Afghanistan and Iraq with historically insignificant casualties and high gas prices?? and 40% of the population is willing to worship a POLITICIAN? Are we really that weak?
Maybe it's getting close to time for the reset button on this mess.
Obamaism isn't the New Nazism; it's what PRODUCES Nazism. It is the soft, mindless anteroom to the real, brutal thing itself. Obama is the culmination of four decades of unreason, narcissism, and a too easy life built on all the wrong things.
Four?
Try seven.
Post by: RevDisk on August 28, 2008, 05:51:17 PM
That's a new record, I think. Godwin's Law was invoked in the first reply. Reductio ad Hitlerum if you want to sound more cultured.
Without touching any Nazi references, which I think are extremely overblown... Seeing any politician as a messiah figure is deeply worrisome. A thousand crooks cannot cause the damage of one 'saint'.
Post by: longeyes on August 28, 2008, 06:33:08 PM
Post by: longeyes on August 28, 2008, 09:17:15 PM
Post by: S_O_Laban on August 29, 2008, 01:03:58 AM
Here's an interesting read on The Big O's speech. E =)njoy.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 29, 2008, 02:23:46 AM
It seems to me that focusing on the backdrop is a red herring. Is anyone ready to discuss the substance of what he said?
How dare you accuse The One of substance?
Post by: Ezekiel on August 29, 2008, 03:46:36 AM
His entire career, Obama has avoided interceptions: I would prefer he not have his clunker game in the White House.
Of course, McCain is just a running-attack type plodder. He can't possibly get blown out, but he's not going to go out and WIN the game, either.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 29, 2008, 05:39:46 AM
Quote from: Obama
"For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."
That's gonna be a chink in McCain's armor. I highly doubt, however, Obama's claim that he was so adamantly against setting Afghanistan on the back-burner and going into Iraq. The burden of guilt for letting Osama bin Laden slip through our fingers is shared by folks on both sides of the aisle.
Still, it has been this very disappointment that has lead me to believe that this war we fight now has very little to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.
Post by: agricola on August 29, 2008, 05:42:40 AM
Obama's campaign reminds me of a football team that throws forty times per game: any given moment, against a better team, they can lay 60 on you. Conversely, against inferior competition, they can throw 5 interceptions.
His entire career, Obama has avoided interceptions: I would prefer he not have his clunker game in the White House.
Of course, McCain is just a running-attack type plodder. He can't possibly get blown out, but he's not going to go out and WIN the game, either.
His entire career, Obama has avoided interceptions: I would prefer he not have his clunker game in the White House.
Of course, McCain is just a running-attack type plodder. He can't possibly get blown out, but he's not going to go out and WIN the game, either.
If we are using football metaphors, this election campaign is looking very much like Superbowl XLII.
Post by: Silver Bullet on August 29, 2008, 05:43:13 AM
Quote
The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.
I cant wait to vote against this bozo.
But I guess Ill have to.
Post by: French G. on August 29, 2008, 06:23:58 AM
Quote from: Obama
"For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."
That's gonna be a chink in McCain's armor. I highly doubt, however, Obama's claim that he was so adamantly against setting Afghanistan on the back-burner and going into Iraq. The burden of guilt for letting Osama bin Laden slip through our fingers is shared by folks on both sides of the aisle.
Still, it has been this very disappointment that has lead me to believe that this war we fight now has very little to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.
So where did he stand up and oppose the war? Denny's? Maybe the Illinois legislature? Both would have required tons of courage since both have zero to do with foreign policy. Way to take a stand buddy.
Post by: freakazoid on August 29, 2008, 07:08:05 AM
Jon Stewert - Some at home might be wondering why it is a little lighter there in the sky than, people might think at 11 O'Clock it would be...
Aasif Mandvi - Well, yes, well at the end of his speach Barack Obama brought the sun back.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 29, 2008, 03:12:53 PM
It seems to me that focusing on the backdrop is a red herring. Is anyone ready to discuss the substance of what he said?
If you want to talk about the "substance," why are you reading a thread about the stage?
And I might as well let you know that we've been discussing Obama's political views and policy proposals for months here. We won't learn anything new from a speech. In any case, this is the last place that a big-govt., tax-and-spend, anti-gun Democrat like Obama will get any support. Around here, the only viable contest is between McCain, Barr and Paul. And whoever the Const. Party is running this year.
Post by: Ezekiel on September 03, 2008, 07:29:50 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 03, 2008, 08:05:30 PM
Quote
In any case, this is the last place that a big-govt., tax-and-spend, anti-gun Democrat like Obama will get any support.
It seems to me the last eight years win first place for big-govt growing, borrowing and spending (unprecedented), and anti more Constitutional rights and American freedoms than just RKBA.
I knew you would say that. And that is exactly why I included the very important term "Democrat." As we all know, conservatives will let a republican get away with a lot of that, while we will reject any such Democrat outright. I should have just called him a far-left Democrat. Would have been less confusing.
Quote
Quote
Around here, the only viable contest is between McCain, Barr and Paul.
Well. good luck with that. Barr and Paul are non-starters and McCain can only win if his surrogates manage to fearmonger his way into the Whitehouse.
I can see that you completely missed the point. Hint: I said "around here." In other words, most of us here know enough about Obama's "substance" to know
Post by: roo_ster on September 04, 2008, 04:58:00 AM
Quote
The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.
I cant wait to vote against this bozo.
But I guess Ill have to.
As they say in Chi-town: Vote early and often!
Post by: Manedwolf on September 04, 2008, 04:59:28 AM
Of if he gets the soccer mom (Hillary) and right-wing radical vote due to a PURELY political VP pick.
ANY VP PICK IS POLITICAL.
What the hell are you trying to get at? What would you choose a VP for, liking the same flavor of icecream that you do???
Post by: Ezekiel on September 04, 2008, 05:54:12 AM
Of if he gets the soccer mom (Hillary) and right-wing radical vote due to a PURELY political VP pick.
ANY VP PICK IS POLITICAL.
What the hell are you trying to get at? What would you choose a VP for, liking the same flavor of icecream that you do???
In theory, to be President of the United States in the event of catastrophe.
Post by: Balog on September 04, 2008, 05:58:57 AM
Of if he gets the soccer mom (Hillary) and right-wing radical vote due to a PURELY political VP pick.
ANY VP PICK IS POLITICAL.
What the hell are you trying to get at? What would you choose a VP for, liking the same flavor of icecream that you do???
In theory, to be President of the United States in the event of catastrophe.
Who do you think would have been a better choice under those criteria?
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 04, 2008, 08:50:00 AM
Of if he gets the soccer mom (Hillary) and right-wing radical vote due to a PURELY political VP pick.
ANY VP PICK IS POLITICAL.
What the hell are you trying to get at? What would you choose a VP for, liking the same flavor of icecream that you do???
In theory, to be President of the United States in the event of catastrophe.
Yet VPs are always chosen to balance the ticket, moreso than for qualifications to be President. Why do you choose this point in time to make such a big issue out of it?
Post by: Ezekiel on September 04, 2008, 08:59:29 AM
Any number of the proposed "short list" would be better for America.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 04, 2008, 11:00:22 AM
Because he's 72 and she is atrocious.
She's only atrocious to you because you oppose her views. I, for, one, am sorry she's not MORE of a nutjob.