On 30-7-2009 20:59, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> US policy never seems to amaze because I have 
>> not seen much hatred or personals attacks on Obama yet.
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
> 
> etc.
> 
None of these seem to come directly from the republican party and most 
if not all date from during the campaign. So there is no reason to 
change my conclusion that the republican party has accepted Obama as 
their president and are not using foul play to remove him from power 
and/or cripple the administration simply because he is from that other 
party. Also McCain's reaction when confronted with a xenophobe supporter 
during the campaign points to a more 'mature' attitude by both parties.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> So there is no reason to 
> change my conclusion that the republican party has accepted Obama as 
> their president and are not using foul play to remove him from power 
> and/or cripple the administration simply because he is from that other 
> party. 

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/17/health-care-and-the-tea-partie

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/20/obama_pushes_back_against_talk.html

Uh, no. Living here, I can guarantee you there's frequent "defeat obama even 
at the cost of the rest of america" going on pretty frequently.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 07/30/09 14:15, andrel wrote:
> None of these seem to come directly from the republican party and most
> if not all date from during the campaign. So there is no reason to

	The Republican Party may not be doing it directly, but issues of his 
being a citizen via birth haven't gone away. One soldier recently 
managed to get himself undeployed from Iraq on the basis of his 
challenging whether Obama is the commander in chief, because he doesn't 
believe Obama is a natural born citizen.

	And as for the Muslim issue, wasn't that something Hilary was 
responsible for?


-- 
To call a man an ass is to insult the jackass.  M.Twain

Post a reply to this message

On 07/30/09 18:00, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> being a citizen via birth haven't gone away. One soldier recently
> managed to get himself undeployed from Iraq on the basis of his

	Actually, I meant Afghanistan.


-- 
To call a man an ass is to insult the jackass.  M.Twain

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> Aside from a handful of people who think that our federal government is 
> always up to something evil, no matter who is in office, a small number 
> of people were afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome to such a degree 
> that they believe him capable of anything evil.  In all fairness, 
> conspiracy theories about Clinton abounded during his time in office as 
> well.
> 
> Regards,
> John
I think Bush was a borderline idiot, and Cheney, and other around him, 
where pushing the agendas in some really stupid ways, with what "is" a 
clear goal of making the country more like what a small minority of 
loonies want it to be, as his supposed "advisors". Do I qualify? lol

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 30-7-2009 20:59, Warp wrote:
>> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> US policy never seems to amaze because I have not seen much hatred or 
>>> personals attacks on Obama yet.
>>
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
>>
>> etc.
>>
> None of these seem to come directly from the republican party and most 
> if not all date from during the campaign. So there is no reason to 
> change my conclusion that the republican party has accepted Obama as 
> their president and are not using foul play to remove him from power 
> and/or cripple the administration simply because he is from that other 
> party. Also McCain's reaction when confronted with a xenophobe supporter 
> during the campaign points to a more 'mature' attitude by both parties.
> 
There is a Youtube on this issue, which I don't have a link to. Someone 
from Huffpo (man that place is a weird mix of fact based stuff and pure 
bullshit, but that is a different issue), where one of their reporters 
tries to get a clear answer from people on "if" Obama was born in the 
US. It was only like 5-6 people, but one tried damn hard to *not* be 
interviewed, most of the others waffled a lot, and wouldn't answer, 
except to babble, in a few cases, about, "Its being looked into", and 
only one admitted that he "accepted" the truth, only he also claimed 
that Obama was trying to systematically destroy the country with his 
policies.

Some times you don't need conspiracy, just paranoia, combined with 
rampant delusion, and a blind refusal to accept reality, all topped with 
a hint of lime (without the m).

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 30-7-2009 22:08, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> So there is no reason to change my conclusion that the republican 
>> party has accepted Obama as their president and are not using foul 
>> play to remove him from power and/or cripple the administration simply 
>> because he is from that other party. 
> 
> http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/17/health-care-and-the-tea-partie
> 
> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/20/obama_pushes_back_against_talk.html 

There may be some retrospective(*) religious inspired idea that health 
care for poor people is inherently bad for the country but to me this 
sort of 'reasoning' does indeed make no sense.

> Uh, no. Living here, I can guarantee you there's frequent "defeat obama 
> even at the cost of the rest of america" going on pretty frequently.

I believe you, it is just that we here don't see that as often (i.e. 
almost not at all). Perhaps because things like the above do not make 
sense if you publish them in a Dutch newspaper, other than 'those silly 
americans', and what is the news value of that?

*) first you have an idea and then you try to find a religious sounding 
reasoning for it.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> bullshit, but that is a different issue), where one of their reporters 
> tries to get a clear answer from people on "if" Obama was born in the 

Yes. Someone asked "Is he a citizen?"  Answer: "No, he shouldn't be 
president because he wasn't born here."  Then they asked "So he's an illegal 
immigrant? We should deport him back to Kenya?"  All of a sudden, there's 
much more waffling.

Sort of like the pro-life protesters, when you ask "so we should put the 
mothers in jail, right?"

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> I think Bush was a borderline idiot

Much as we like to insult politicians, I doubt Bush was even close to 
being a borderline idiot; my understanding is that 'idiot' is (or was, 
back in the day) a clearly delineated statement of particular mental 
ability reserved for people with genuinely *really low* IQs.  And, to 
reference wikipedia, "In the early 1900s, Dr. Henry H. Goddard proposed 
a classification system for mental retardation based on the Binet-Simon 
concept of mental age. Individuals with the lowest mental age level 
(less than three years) were identified as idiots; imbiciles had a 
mental age of three to 7 years., and morons had a mental age of seven to 
ten years.  IQ, or intelligence quotient, is determined by dividing a 
person's mental age, as determined by standardized tests, by 
chronological age. The term "idiot" is sometimes used to refer to people 
having an IQ below 30."

So...yeah.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:12:40 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>I believe you, it is just that we here don't see that as often (i.e. 
>almost not at all). Perhaps because things like the above do not make 
>sense if you publish them in a Dutch newspaper, other than 'those silly 
>americans', and what is the news value of that?

I've recently found Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" on British TV.
Very funny and it gives me a lot more respect for Americans. (Well some of them,
anyway :) )

There are some clips that you can see, here.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message