Starting Already...
Echoing a recently-ubiquitous theme, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (Moron - Kansas), has already begun throwing out the ready-made excuse for barack Obama's eventual defeat in November. Apparently, Obama will loose because his foes "speak in code". Having once been on the receiving end of an accusation of code talking, I'll translate what that means for you.
It means that: (White) People are saying things which can be construed as being 'racist' (so long as you have the time and mental deficiency required to spend hours torturing racism from the context and subtext of their words), but which cannot be called racist at first glance, because there is no evidence to back that accusation up. However, since all white people speak a secret language (English is now a secret language?), anything they say can be construed as 'talking in code', and is therefore proof positive of their overt racism. After all, if they were talking to real people, they'd be using Ebonics or Spanglish (/sarcasm tag on).
This is the same thrust of most Diversity Training programs (Re-education classes), by the way -- you (White Person) are racist and don't even know it. We (minorities, gays, feminazis, transgendered tree frogs) hear it every time you open your mouth to speak. But that's okay: you can't help it -- it's cultural. Or embeddied in your DNA. We're not sure..Just believe it's true and we'll all get along better.
Here's the report, from AP (take it with a grain of salt), via Yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/ap_on_el_pr/republicans_race_2
Uh-huh. The last refuge of a scoundrel is an accusation of racism, particularly an unfounded one. This is such a racist country that Barack Obama managed to garner a gazillion votes and be nominated for the highest office in the land. Facts are stubborn things, but never discount the abilitgy of a democrat to miss the obvious; they'll still make wildly innacurrate accusations, anyway. Especially if they're losing. Of course, if Obama came out and said something like this (actually, I'm certain Michelle Obama already has), he would be accused of whining, so they send a surrogate out to say it. And a white one at that, because, you know, she knows the 'code' (it's not strictly limited to use by white men). A wonderful little ploy: the candidate gets to accuse the American public of racism, and he can always say "Gov. Sebelius is entitled to her own opinion, and to express it. I've never asked her to say anything. But I abhor this injection of race into the campaign...the American people are better than that." Or words to that effect.
They call it 'plausible deniability'.
Expect riots in the streets on November 4th, when the aspirations of 90% of the black electorate, who show every sign of backing Obama even if it were suddenly discovered that he ate babies and kicked puppies for sport, have their demi-god go down in ignominious defeat. The stage is being set for a reprise of "Burn, Baby, Burn".
Couretesy of Kathleen Sebelius and the democratic party.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Bring The Boys Back Home...After I Win, Of Course...
Amir Taheri recently wrote this column in the NYPost (http://www.nypost.com/);
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm
The gist of the article is that while Barack Obama was publicaly telling Americans he wanted the troops home, post-haste, he was begging the Iraqi government, on the Q.T., to not negotiate a timetable for American withdrawl with the Bush Administration. He asked them to do this, apparently on the assumption that he would win the election, and therefore, take credit for the Troops Coming Home. God forbid, if you're Obama, that Geroge W. Bush succeed in bringing (any) troops home before Nov. 4, 2008; you've already pencilled that into the To Do List in your Day Planner for Jan 21, 2009.
The Obama campaign issued this denial, which will later be corrected and reissued as a statement, which will again be further refined and reissued as a clarification of Sentaor Obama's Position, which will later be further amended until Obama takes McCain's position on Iraq by officially saying "Yeah, what McCain said. me too!". That's how things work in Obamaland:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi9TDNHvuBZpFsO8ZbiFYsnbIl3A
This is pretty thin as far as a defense for the indefensible goes. Once again, the stark contrasts between McCain and Obama; McCain is a leader, Obama is a Constitutional Lawyer (contradiction in terms), and this becomes ever-more evident with each passing day as his campaign must continually issue statements like this one, coded in carefully-crafted, lawyer-quality Crapspeak.
McCain would never go, hat-in-hand, to the Iraqi government (two lies for the price of one) and beg them not to kick us out -- and then parade around in front of the American People saying we should leave Iraq, and oh, by the way, the Iraqis themselves want us to leave. Obama has beaten that drum far too many times, so when something like this is suggested he has a very difficult time squaring the stated policy with the known facts.
That's a bad thing if you want to be President of the United States.
Amir Taheri recently wrote this column in the NYPost (http://www.nypost.com/);
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm
The gist of the article is that while Barack Obama was publicaly telling Americans he wanted the troops home, post-haste, he was begging the Iraqi government, on the Q.T., to not negotiate a timetable for American withdrawl with the Bush Administration. He asked them to do this, apparently on the assumption that he would win the election, and therefore, take credit for the Troops Coming Home. God forbid, if you're Obama, that Geroge W. Bush succeed in bringing (any) troops home before Nov. 4, 2008; you've already pencilled that into the To Do List in your Day Planner for Jan 21, 2009.
The Obama campaign issued this denial, which will later be corrected and reissued as a statement, which will again be further refined and reissued as a clarification of Sentaor Obama's Position, which will later be further amended until Obama takes McCain's position on Iraq by officially saying "Yeah, what McCain said. me too!". That's how things work in Obamaland:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi9TDNHvuBZpFsO8ZbiFYsnbIl3A
This is pretty thin as far as a defense for the indefensible goes. Once again, the stark contrasts between McCain and Obama; McCain is a leader, Obama is a Constitutional Lawyer (contradiction in terms), and this becomes ever-more evident with each passing day as his campaign must continually issue statements like this one, coded in carefully-crafted, lawyer-quality Crapspeak.
McCain would never go, hat-in-hand, to the Iraqi government (two lies for the price of one) and beg them not to kick us out -- and then parade around in front of the American People saying we should leave Iraq, and oh, by the way, the Iraqis themselves want us to leave. Obama has beaten that drum far too many times, so when something like this is suggested he has a very difficult time squaring the stated policy with the known facts.
That's a bad thing if you want to be President of the United States.
Two Americas and We Feel Your Pain...
Link from Drudge Report about a $28,500 a plate fundraiser being held for Barack Obama tonight:
http://drudgereport.com/flashbh.htm
Two things spring immediately to mind.
First, it's democrats (small 'd' intentional) who typically claim to be the champion of the Little Guy, you know, the guy who can't afford 28K to watch Barabara Streisand while eating gold-plated rubber chicken from diamond-studded platinum plates (the chicken and plates had better be gilded for 28k)? How one can make the argument that you serve the proletariat while your supporters obviously have so much money they don't-know-what-to do-with-it-all-except- watch-Babs-and-donate-scads-of-spare-cash-to-'the-(almost-lost)-cause'? After all, don't we all have a spare 28k to lend? And if not, shouldn't there be a government program to ensure that everyone does have a spare 28k? There's a contradiction here; republicans are supposed to be the party of The Rich. Somehow, it seems the democrats have become The Rich. How does that happen, and how does a committed democrat keep /hisher head from exploding trying to figure out how to justify it to all them poor folk /he/she's s'posed to be fightin' fer?
Secondly, it illustrates incredibly bad taste and a sort of shamelessness that is so utterly stupid, that you really start to question whether these people are thinking human beings. If you would lay out $28.5k to help 'Bama stay afloat for another few weeks (before he loses), then you're the sort who would attend a "Chateaubriand for Ethiopia" party, with no sense of shame. Or perhaps you'd arrive at an Earth Day celebration in your stretch SUV -- which will whisk you to your five-minute appearance to make an innocuous speech, and then whisk you back to your private jet -- so you can get back to your 32-room mansion that leaks electricity like a sieve, in imperial comfort, without a second thought about propriety.
When democrats lose the election this fall (it's almost assured, at this point, I think) they will invariably point to all the same bugaboos they have in the past to explain their defeats: Evangelical Christians came out in force, Republicans 'Swiftboated' their candidate and they didn't fight back, Republicans outspent them, the 'Merican people are too dumb to see that Obama was superior, etc, etc. One reason for defeat they will never recognize, however, is that it's damned hypocritical to complain that repebulicans are only concerned about The Rich and Big Business, and don't care about The Poor, and don't care about Mother Earth, while you shuttle to highly-publicized events like this one, spending on one night of entertainment and political rabble-rousing what some people don't even earn in an entire year.
For the last two weeks Obama/Biden have been out repeating the same mantra; John McCain is out of touch, John McCain has no idea what the average American's life is like, John McCain does not inhabit the same reality as everyone else.
Apparently there are no mirrors at Obama Central. If there were, they'd be forced to look at themselves.
Link from Drudge Report about a $28,500 a plate fundraiser being held for Barack Obama tonight:
http://drudgereport.com/flashbh.htm
Two things spring immediately to mind.
First, it's democrats (small 'd' intentional) who typically claim to be the champion of the Little Guy, you know, the guy who can't afford 28K to watch Barabara Streisand while eating gold-plated rubber chicken from diamond-studded platinum plates (the chicken and plates had better be gilded for 28k)? How one can make the argument that you serve the proletariat while your supporters obviously have so much money they don't-know-what-to do-with-it-all-except- watch-Babs-and-donate-scads-of-spare-cash-to-'the-(almost-lost)-cause'? After all, don't we all have a spare 28k to lend? And if not, shouldn't there be a government program to ensure that everyone does have a spare 28k? There's a contradiction here; republicans are supposed to be the party of The Rich. Somehow, it seems the democrats have become The Rich. How does that happen, and how does a committed democrat keep /hisher head from exploding trying to figure out how to justify it to all them poor folk /he/she's s'posed to be fightin' fer?
Secondly, it illustrates incredibly bad taste and a sort of shamelessness that is so utterly stupid, that you really start to question whether these people are thinking human beings. If you would lay out $28.5k to help 'Bama stay afloat for another few weeks (before he loses), then you're the sort who would attend a "Chateaubriand for Ethiopia" party, with no sense of shame. Or perhaps you'd arrive at an Earth Day celebration in your stretch SUV -- which will whisk you to your five-minute appearance to make an innocuous speech, and then whisk you back to your private jet -- so you can get back to your 32-room mansion that leaks electricity like a sieve, in imperial comfort, without a second thought about propriety.
When democrats lose the election this fall (it's almost assured, at this point, I think) they will invariably point to all the same bugaboos they have in the past to explain their defeats: Evangelical Christians came out in force, Republicans 'Swiftboated' their candidate and they didn't fight back, Republicans outspent them, the 'Merican people are too dumb to see that Obama was superior, etc, etc. One reason for defeat they will never recognize, however, is that it's damned hypocritical to complain that repebulicans are only concerned about The Rich and Big Business, and don't care about The Poor, and don't care about Mother Earth, while you shuttle to highly-publicized events like this one, spending on one night of entertainment and political rabble-rousing what some people don't even earn in an entire year.
For the last two weeks Obama/Biden have been out repeating the same mantra; John McCain is out of touch, John McCain has no idea what the average American's life is like, John McCain does not inhabit the same reality as everyone else.
Apparently there are no mirrors at Obama Central. If there were, they'd be forced to look at themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)