3 ms·

Thus highlighting the problem with voting: 1. Assertion made, viz, "Obama looks presidential". 2. Disproof offered, viz, a visual display of all prior preside

Thus highlighting the problem with voting: 1. Assertion made, viz, "Obama looks presidential". 2. Disproof offered, viz, a visual display of all prior presidents, none of whom look the remotest bit like Obama, even after correcting for skin color. 3. Instant downvoting of disproof, and upvoting of false assertion. Get this, chums. He wouldn't even pass for a Kenyan president: http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/jpeg/bushandkibaki.jpg http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/jpeg/bushandkibaki.jpg Enough with the BS. I read the prominent liberal blogs, and the very day that Mike Ditka dropped out of the senate race, and Obama became an uncontestable shoo-in, the party mouths decided that Obama was their future candidate. He was given the DNC keynote to officially start the process: It was an embarressing mess of nonsense ("gay friends in the red states"), cliches ("America...a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before") and winking admissions of the two-faced identity politics to come ("They would give me an African name, Barack, or "blessed," believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success."). Fine, and so everyone in the media agreed that the intolerable bilge confirmed his brilliance. There's no fighting taste, and I'll agree he delivers better than Clinton (who sounds like she's adressing a disobediant kindergarten class) but why Obama out of 300 millions? He fit the bill, but what bill was it? I made a prediction long ago: Obama is the one chance for the Democrats to lose the white house yet again. Hillary and Edwards split the white vote in South Carolina. The whole South will play the same. Hispanics are less than inspired by him as well. Clinton won the Hispanic vote handily in Nevada. You have a candidate that is popular with two groups: Blacks, who know the price, and over-educated white liberals, who don't. McCain wins.

andreyf 19y ago
a visual display of all prior presidents, none of whom look the remotest bit like Obama There's more to it than that. Obama looks, sounds, and acts presidential, and the disproof was in some way or another inadequate. the party mouths decided that Obama was their future candidate Hillary is winning the vast majority of super-delegates, so party leaders seem to be supporting her, not Obama. Obama is the one chance for the Democrats to lose the white house yet again Would you feel the same about an Obama/Edwards ticket? McCain wins. What reason do you have to think that Romney won't be winning the nomination?
- mynameishere 19y ago
  Obama looks, sounds, and acts presidential, and the disproof was in some way or another inadequate. The assertion was "Obama simply looks presidential", not "sounds" or "acts". I displayed the portraits of ALL PRIOR PRESIDENTS, and NONE OF THEM LOOK LIKE OBAMA. Even if that as-perfect-as-humanly-possible disproof was somehow "inadequate", the proof in the first place was completely absent...only a bald declaration. By "party mouths" I mean the "four legs good" people who do the talking. The left media has been falling over itself to kiss Obama's ass from Day 1 until the present--and I don't predict that will change. Clinton, by contrast, has been viewed quite negatively. Would you feel the same about an Obama/Edwards ticket? I don't see that happening. Edwards has already been an unsuccessful #2, and I don't think he would do it again. What reason do you have to think that Romney won't be winning the nomination? A gut feeling. The media, for reasons unknown, has been handling madman McCain very gently. You know, I'm just reading chicken entrails [1] here, don't you? It is pyschologically interesting to me how someone could utter "Obama looks presidential"...it is received wisdom, because there's no way a brain could derive such falsehood on its own. If I passed by Mitt Romney on the street, I'd probably think, "That guys looks like the VP in charge of operations at an auto parts factory". McCain looks like a retired security guard. Edwards looks just like a trial lawyer, of course. But if I saw Obama, I might think, "That guy looks like a schoolteacher." That's what he looks like. To think he "looks presidential", you'd have to be pretty damn brainwashed. [1] I mean, public declarations by candidates, coverage by the media, operations of the parties, etc, are all one or two or three steps removed from the truth. You have to guess at what's really happening...
  - pius 19y ago
    The assertion was "Obama simply looks presidential", not "sounds" or "acts". I displayed the portraits of ALL PRIOR PRESIDENTS, and NONE OF THEM LOOK LIKE OBAMA. Even if that as-perfect-as-humanly-possible disproof was somehow "inadequate", the proof in the first place was completely absent...only a bald declaration. What on earth are you talking about?
    - mynameishere 19y ago

andreyf 19y ago

a visual display of all prior presidents, none of whom look the remotest bit like Obama There's more to it than that. Obama looks, sounds, and acts presidential, and the disproof was in some way or another inadequate. the party mouths decided that Obama was their future candidate Hillary is winning the vast majority of super-delegates, so party leaders seem to be supporting her, not Obama. Obama is the one chance for the Democrats to lose the white house yet again Would you feel the same about an Obama/Edwards ticket? McCain wins. What reason do you have to think that Romney won't be winning the nomination?

mynameishere 19y ago
Obama looks, sounds, and acts presidential, and the disproof was in some way or another inadequate. The assertion was "Obama simply looks presidential", not "sounds" or "acts". I displayed the portraits of ALL PRIOR PRESIDENTS, and NONE OF THEM LOOK LIKE OBAMA. Even if that as-perfect-as-humanly-possible disproof was somehow "inadequate", the proof in the first place was completely absent...only a bald declaration. By "party mouths" I mean the "four legs good" people who do the talking. The left media has been falling over itself to kiss Obama's ass from Day 1 until the present--and I don't predict that will change. Clinton, by contrast, has been viewed quite negatively. Would you feel the same about an Obama/Edwards ticket? I don't see that happening. Edwards has already been an unsuccessful #2, and I don't think he would do it again. What reason do you have to think that Romney won't be winning the nomination? A gut feeling. The media, for reasons unknown, has been handling madman McCain very gently. You know, I'm just reading chicken entrails [1] here, don't you? It is pyschologically interesting to me how someone could utter "Obama looks presidential"...it is received wisdom, because there's no way a brain could derive such falsehood on its own. If I passed by Mitt Romney on the street, I'd probably think, "That guys looks like the VP in charge of operations at an auto parts factory". McCain looks like a retired security guard. Edwards looks just like a trial lawyer, of course. But if I saw Obama, I might think, "That guy looks like a schoolteacher." That's what he looks like. To think he "looks presidential", you'd have to be pretty damn brainwashed. [1] I mean, public declarations by candidates, coverage by the media, operations of the parties, etc, are all one or two or three steps removed from the truth. You have to guess at what's really happening...
- pius 19y ago
  The assertion was "Obama simply looks presidential", not "sounds" or "acts". I displayed the portraits of ALL PRIOR PRESIDENTS, and NONE OF THEM LOOK LIKE OBAMA. Even if that as-perfect-as-humanly-possible disproof was somehow "inadequate", the proof in the first place was completely absent...only a bald declaration. What on earth are you talking about?
  - mynameishere 19y ago