I'm Mac.
and I'm P.C
Posted on 09/12/2008 3:41:25 AM PDT by Kaslin
Not to worry, O’s new ATTACK (lolol) ad showing McCain to be computer illiterate is going to force the entire voting population to abandon John and Sarah and rush to O/Biden.
I will think of her fondly as I gut my first meat deer this November and feel secure in the fact that she has been elected VP of the greatest nation on earth.
He can have an army of computer geeks to perform the business of government at his disposal and doesn’t need to waste time watching some kid who ‘likes turtles’ on youtube.
ping
Love it. Almost fell out of my chair laughing!
Obama’s not a stupid guy...he knows Macs are better. ;-)
(So does Rush Limbaugh.)
Great column!
Sarah Sarah Sarah! She's the real thing. I'm an Aussie, saw her interviewed tonight on TV. Knocked my socks off!
I won’t think less of her if she elects to campaign in flats.
Macs are always best for those who can't use a real machine. ;-)
“Macs are always best for those who can’t use a real machine. ;-)”
Not sure how, since Macs will run Windows and Windows programs. Will regular PCs run Mac programs? Plus, in all recent testing, MacOS has been faster than Vista at almost every common function.
Macs are a bit more expensive, but you also get a lot of actually useful bundled software, and an enjoyable operating system based on bulletproof BSD Unix. ;-)
Get in line.
ROTFLMAO! Great post!
OK, why is the fresh aroma of ignorance wafting from a statement like this? This "ban" Greenberg references is aimed at candidates, not at voters. Our constitution wasn't drafted in "tidbits" of freedom & candidates like Palin haven't just widened it! (Give me a break!)
When it comes to issues like candidate eligibility, Newsflash, Greenberg!! Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds). Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!
From the article: It took a while to extend that protection to exotic types...
No, it didn't. (Either Greenberg is accusing our constitutional authors of failing to offer built-in protection or he is saying there's been candidates through the years who've been dumped from ballots purely because of their religion).
From the article: It took a while to extend that protection to exotic types like us Jews, not to mention Muslims, Mormons, atheists, secular humanists but widespread prejudice persists against Sarah Palin's kind of people. I'm talking about bible thumpers, holy rollers, Jesus freaks, Christers and other such less than affectionate terms I've heard in elegant living rooms, college classrooms and, of course, newsrooms.
Sadly, Greenberg confuses "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution). Article VI says absolutely nothing...nada...zero...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...nowhere does Article VI say that voters MUST 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates! (otherwise no voter could frown upon a Satanist candidate due to his Satanism).
"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot -- and if we pass citizenship requirements (and for POTUS, age requirements), we're all eligible. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.
From the article: Now all those once unmovable prejudices have encountered an attractive, indeed irresistible, force. You can almost hear the stereotypes crumbling.
Hey, if a Wahhabi Muslim who believes in imposing sharia law in this country (like what's happening in other countries) runs for U.S. office, tell me exactly who would keep him off the ballot if he wanted to run? (I haven't heard of "unmovable prejudices" dumping specific candidates off of ballots, has anybody else?) But just because such candidates have such ballot protection doesn't equate that he/she has "unmovable" voter protection...if a voter doesn't want religiously based sharia law imposed in this country, then yes, a voter can take that into consideration and it's not an "unmovable prejudice" to do so!
By all means, just as the #1 reason why LDS voters in Utah told the Salt Lake Tribune why they voted in the mid-90s percentiles for Mitt Romney ("personal qualities"), voters do not have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.
I'm sure if Amish voters in Pennsylvania, Baptist voters in the most Baptist part of Texas, and Mormon voters in Utah all voted for their respective Amish, Baptist, and Mormon candidates in those areas, they are not engaging in "unmovable prejudice" just because they took that quality of a candidate into consideration when they voted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.