Posted on 10/18/2008 3:02:52 PM PDT by null and void
While on the way to brunch today, the weighted Companion Cube pointed out that 0bama made a very telling joke:
He said whoever gave me my middle name didn't think I'd ever be running for president.
eh? "Whoever gave me my middle name"??? Doesn't he know?
Maybe we're reading to much into that, but several things come to mind. Most of those could explain why he is so reluctant to allow the American people anywhere near his real birth certificate.
and
We have been reminded that 0bama selected his own name after 'Barry Soetoro' was given up for adoption.
You do know that there is a big difference between asking a question and making an accusation, don't you?
Of course, you do take the same approach as the libs and the MSM. Instead of bolstering your argument with fact, you find it easier to being a smear campaign against those who disagree with you. That is the sign of a small mind. A very small mind.
I'll take that as a no...
Yes I do. And that is why I answered like I did. But I will answer your question about why I did not jump on the Anti-Obama band wagon on this thread.
I heard the joke. It was written by a writer and for an event that was meant to raise money for a Christian Charity. Anything said at such an event needs to be taken with a huge dose of salt.
This race is about focus. As a FReeper, you know the importance of being able to understand the key issues and then being able to articulate the correctness of the conservative argument that solves the issue. You also need to be able to articulate the fallicy in the liberal argument as well. We need focus now, not going astray on things that don't matter.
Yes...and given that fact, you'd think it would behoove people, especially FReepers to be fully informed before they offer up an opinion based on partial information.
Oh...and as a whole FNS ceased to be fair and balanced long ago.
Sure it is.
Thanks for weighing in on this nully ... I was beginning to think that I had created a rogue wave in the acoustics of the McCain Echo Chamber, and that nobody was reading closely enough to understand what I meant. I sure didn’t want to mess up your thread, but I did ignite quite the firestorm. ;-)
Comedy is one of those things that either strikes you or it doesn't. It is no secret around here that I don't like McCain at all. Being a pretty staunch conservative, it stands to reason that I don't like Obama one bit either. I think that placed me squarely in the middle to view their performances without a preconceived notion.
It is a gorgeous day here and I hope that you are enjoying a beautiful Sunday afternoon yourself. Take care.
Although I imagine if I had heard part of a McCain speech and fawned all over him, that would have been perfectly acceptable. For the love of pete ... I heard approximately the same amount from each guy. The lines that I saw delivered by one were funnier and told with better rhythm than the other.
Way, way, back in this thread I said that I would defer judgment on the whole of the remarks made at the dinner to those who watched the whole damned thing.
Thank you for your comments. I have taken quite the beating in this thread ... not that it matters much ... and it is good to know that there was another human out there that agrees.
I reviewed the last several hundred of your posts and now understand better how you think.
You are very consistent in demanding a sky high standard of proof before 'jumping on the bandwagon'. By itself, that is a very admirable attitude.
In politics, it is lethal. Beside the heavy time compression that makes extensive search for Absolute Truth impossible (Just how much Truth can we extract from a left skilled at hiding it in the next 16 days?) Truth is, sadly, not a political value.
In the first place politicians have lied so much and so consistently that voters no longer expect or demand Truth from them, and haven't for decades.
For the most part, people actually vote on feeeeeelings and familiarity, they vote for people they think of as 'just like them', not on any facts of character or ideology.
An important factor in their 'feeeeeelings' is the 'halo' surrounding 'their' candidate. If his opponents quake in their boots at the thought of offending him, they feeeeeeel pretty good about how powerful he is. If no one dares to question him, they feeeeeel like he is unquestionable and right.
When a democrat deliberately and maliciously accuses a conservative of crimes, knowing full well that no crime exists and that he created the stench out of thin air, the voters get the halo of Mr Conservative is a criminal, and Mr Radical is 'speaking truth to power'.
No one cares that the accusations are proven false two years after the election. No one.
When we fail to raise the alarm when we have real indications of or reasonable cause to believe that Mr Progressive is guilty, guilty, guilty of major crimes, moral lapses and flat out treason, we prevent the discussion of the issue. We actively deny voters an opportunity to understand the enemy and we discourage any investigation, and our inaction enables evil to triumph.
At worst, questions about reasonable doubts force Mr Jihadist Lover off topic and to talk about a subject he desperately wants to avoid, and to lie about it on the record - case in point, Bill Ayers - he's gone from just some guy in the neighborhood, to admitting that they worked together, and Ayers hosted 0bama's political start in his own living room, now we know that this guy he'd seen around in the 'hood shared an office with 0bama for THREE YEARS (although 0bama hasn't yet admitted that little factoid). Voters are starting to ask themselves if he lied to us about his relationship with Ayers, can he reeeaaallly be as truthful about everything as we thought???
Not raising the question is called Tacit Approval.
I will continue to publicly question every instance of suspicious activity, every irregularity, every lie and omission of the 'progressives' and their Anointed One that comes to my attention.
Feel free to sit on the sidelines until proof positive is available before uttering a peep.
May I remind you that questionable data about 0bama has a disturbing tendency to vanish as we are investigating it?
If 0bama gets elected, such data will never see the light of day. There won't be a truth finding two years after the election, or ever.
Do you tacitly approve of 0bama?
I appreciate the bumps...
Was it me or did Obama’s smile seem pasted on?
Lippygate.
Both he and Sarah had ‘em tattooed...
Wow, good find, what is the “Barry J.” from 2001 all about? Did he really have a middle name beginning with “J” for some period of time, or what is going on?
Can someone who knows how to research the background of websites figure out what is going on with all these web pages that refer to “Barry J.” and also try to determine why a bunch of the links are dead, even links for pages in the Internet Archive?? Has someone been sanitizing these records or is there another explanation?
See this Internet Archive page from 2001 (it appears that in 2001 he was going as “Barry J. Obama” unless someone made a mistake in the middle initial that was fed out to several disparate web pages):
http://web.archive.org/web/20011017072106/ednet.rvc.cc.il.us/~PeterR/ST/ilstsen.htm
Referring URL: http://www.google.com/search2001/search?q=%22barack+j+obama%22&hl=en&sa=N
Modified: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 2:09:59 PM
also see this one:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010531162217/capitolimpact.com/gw/illeg/ilss13.html
First of all, your apology is accepted, although quite frankly your posting was well in the limits of good taste. It is very hard to understand people when all you have are postings on this great site. You don't get to see body language, facial expressions or actions.
For me, the top four things issues this election are Terror, Economy, Border and Character. Your comments that I have highlighted above are things that I have thought much about. Yes, it angers me.
I use this forum to gather information about these four items to have meaningful discussions with my fence sitting friends. The crowd I hang with is generally conservative, with a few fence sitters and liberals. My personal goal is to obtain as much information as is possible to convince the fence sitters that the conservative positions is the best, AND to counter the arguments from the few idiot friends I have. I do want facts and data -- that makes for better arguments. I do use appeals to the emotions when appropriate, but that is used when I think it will work and on a case by case basis.
I am well aware of your claim that crap on conservatives tends to stick more than crap on liberals. I chose to fight this with fact. I also choose to toss terds at the other side with as much fact as is possible, with enough emotion and sarcasm as I think my audience can take. I am actually fairly well skilled at that.
You know a portion of me -- based on my postings -- and you have read me very well! You do not know me by my actions and I suggest that you would be very surprised at how assertive I can be without being obnoxious (unless I want to). Another skill learned.
Have a great day and thanks for the post. We are on the same side.
Fine. Perhaps it would have been better to say just that..."From the small amount I heard from each guy, Obama appeared to be funnier."
Instead you offered up [and I paraphrase]...sadly, Obama was much funnier. Period.
Then you added your little insult toward me that others opinions of who was funnier was not what would or had influenced you with your conclusion of who was the funnier of the two...
But, hey, let's just forget it, maybe your name actually implies more than it being just another run of the mill, clever moniker...
yea, you are. it was a joke
Freud also said "a cigar is sometimes only a cigar"
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.