OT: Obama is dumber than a box of rocks

[Shadowfax]

[quote=urbanrealtor]The sheer poetic irony of your butt cancer aside, I do have a few questions based on your post.[/quote]

HA–that is too funny!

While I don’t subscribe to the censorship option, I do wish there was an ignore feature. I am checking out of the baiting by Costco. Too much inflammation–I guess they didn’t cut it all out of your ass.

I’d rather discuss things with people who can debate reasonably (even John is more appealing, and he’s a little on the wacko side) but at least he is civil about it! And good for a laugh! I am tired of watching Costco insult people and inflict his bitterness on the group. Buh-bye.

AFF/Rus: What is the implied discussion in Marquez et al. I’ve read translations of 100 Years of Solitude and Love…Cholera (and can read enough Spanish to glean the gist of the posts) but have never been to Latin America. What are your thoughts? “Spasibo!”

[NotCranky]

AFF/Rus: What is the implied discussion in Marquez et al.

It think the implied discussion is Fascism/Revolution with patriotism and whether Obama is a suitable American in the mix somehwere.. It has a heavy drift factor though, my fault.

[NotCranky]

AFF/Rus: What is the implied discussion in Marquez et al.

It think the implied discussion is Fascism/Revolution with patriotism and whether Obama is a suitable American in the mix somehwere.. It has a heavy drift factor though, my fault.

[NotCranky]

AFF/Rus: What is the implied discussion in Marquez et al.

It think the implied discussion is Fascism/Revolution with patriotism and whether Obama is a suitable American in the mix somehwere.. It has a heavy drift factor though, my fault.

[NotCranky]

AFF/Rus: What is the implied discussion in Marquez et al.

It think the implied discussion is Fascism/Revolution with patriotism and whether Obama is a suitable American in the mix somehwere.. It has a heavy drift factor though, my fault.

[NotCranky]

AFF/Rus: What is the implied discussion in Marquez et al.

It think the implied discussion is Fascism/Revolution with patriotism and whether Obama is a suitable American in the mix somehwere.. It has a heavy drift factor though, my fault.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Casca]
Stanley Kurtz has reconstructed Bobama’s lost statehouse years from his local media archives. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/386abhgm.asp
Surprise, surprise, surprise, guess what he’s found.[/quote]

Of course that’s what a “Neo-Conservative” paper would look for in examining Obama’s background. Here’s the Standard’s own assessment of its “objectiveness” in news reporting (from Wikipedia):

In an interview with senior Standard writer Matt Labash published by JournalismJobs.com in May 2003, Labash was asked why conservative media outlets had enjoyed recent popularity. Labash responded, somewhat jocularly:[1]

“ Because they feed the rage. We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it’s true somewhat. We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We’ve created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It’s a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It’s a great little racket. I’m glad we found it actually.”

Not much credibility there…

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Casca]
Stanley Kurtz has reconstructed Bobama’s lost statehouse years from his local media archives. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/386abhgm.asp
Surprise, surprise, surprise, guess what he’s found.[/quote]

Of course that’s what a “Neo-Conservative” paper would look for in examining Obama’s background. Here’s the Standard’s own assessment of its “objectiveness” in news reporting (from Wikipedia):

In an interview with senior Standard writer Matt Labash published by JournalismJobs.com in May 2003, Labash was asked why conservative media outlets had enjoyed recent popularity. Labash responded, somewhat jocularly:[1]

“ Because they feed the rage. We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it’s true somewhat. We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We’ve created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It’s a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It’s a great little racket. I’m glad we found it actually.”

Not much credibility there…

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Casca]
Stanley Kurtz has reconstructed Bobama’s lost statehouse years from his local media archives. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/386abhgm.asp
Surprise, surprise, surprise, guess what he’s found.[/quote]

Of course that’s what a “Neo-Conservative” paper would look for in examining Obama’s background. Here’s the Standard’s own assessment of its “objectiveness” in news reporting (from Wikipedia):

In an interview with senior Standard writer Matt Labash published by JournalismJobs.com in May 2003, Labash was asked why conservative media outlets had enjoyed recent popularity. Labash responded, somewhat jocularly:[1]

“ Because they feed the rage. We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it’s true somewhat. We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We’ve created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It’s a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It’s a great little racket. I’m glad we found it actually.”

Not much credibility there…

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Casca]
Stanley Kurtz has reconstructed Bobama’s lost statehouse years from his local media archives. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/386abhgm.asp
Surprise, surprise, surprise, guess what he’s found.[/quote]

Of course that’s what a “Neo-Conservative” paper would look for in examining Obama’s background. Here’s the Standard’s own assessment of its “objectiveness” in news reporting (from Wikipedia):

In an interview with senior Standard writer Matt Labash published by JournalismJobs.com in May 2003, Labash was asked why conservative media outlets had enjoyed recent popularity. Labash responded, somewhat jocularly:[1]

“ Because they feed the rage. We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it’s true somewhat. We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We’ve created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It’s a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It’s a great little racket. I’m glad we found it actually.”

Not much credibility there…

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Casca]
Stanley Kurtz has reconstructed Bobama’s lost statehouse years from his local media archives. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/386abhgm.asp
Surprise, surprise, surprise, guess what he’s found.[/quote]

Of course that’s what a “Neo-Conservative” paper would look for in examining Obama’s background. Here’s the Standard’s own assessment of its “objectiveness” in news reporting (from Wikipedia):

In an interview with senior Standard writer Matt Labash published by JournalismJobs.com in May 2003, Labash was asked why conservative media outlets had enjoyed recent popularity. Labash responded, somewhat jocularly:[1]

“ Because they feed the rage. We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it’s true somewhat. We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We’ve created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It’s a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It’s a great little racket. I’m glad we found it actually.”

Not much credibility there…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Shadowfax: “Spasibo”? Uh-oh, now we’ve got the Russians involved?

I brought up Marquez and Vargas Llosa largely because I thought their respective writings had some bearing on the topic at hand. Marquez is something of a disappointment to me, in that he is an apologist for Castro (something that Vargas Llosa has taken him to task for in the past).

I also brought it up in the context of fascism, communism and republicanism. Rus linked a piece from Orwell’s “Homage to Catalonia”, which I personally think is some of his best writing. The Spanish Civil War also provides an excellent backdrop to the thread given the history of that conflict and the involvement of the Germans, Italians and Soviets.

We get could really discursive and go off on a fresh tangent regarding “wars of liberation” that pitted various ideologies against each other and how those wars still resonate to this day. And how they manifest themselves in the dialogue we are having now (between liberals and conservatives).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Shadowfax: “Spasibo”? Uh-oh, now we’ve got the Russians involved?

I brought up Marquez and Vargas Llosa largely because I thought their respective writings had some bearing on the topic at hand. Marquez is something of a disappointment to me, in that he is an apologist for Castro (something that Vargas Llosa has taken him to task for in the past).

I also brought it up in the context of fascism, communism and republicanism. Rus linked a piece from Orwell’s “Homage to Catalonia”, which I personally think is some of his best writing. The Spanish Civil War also provides an excellent backdrop to the thread given the history of that conflict and the involvement of the Germans, Italians and Soviets.

We get could really discursive and go off on a fresh tangent regarding “wars of liberation” that pitted various ideologies against each other and how those wars still resonate to this day. And how they manifest themselves in the dialogue we are having now (between liberals and conservatives).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Shadowfax: “Spasibo”? Uh-oh, now we’ve got the Russians involved?

I brought up Marquez and Vargas Llosa largely because I thought their respective writings had some bearing on the topic at hand. Marquez is something of a disappointment to me, in that he is an apologist for Castro (something that Vargas Llosa has taken him to task for in the past).

I also brought it up in the context of fascism, communism and republicanism. Rus linked a piece from Orwell’s “Homage to Catalonia”, which I personally think is some of his best writing. The Spanish Civil War also provides an excellent backdrop to the thread given the history of that conflict and the involvement of the Germans, Italians and Soviets.

We get could really discursive and go off on a fresh tangent regarding “wars of liberation” that pitted various ideologies against each other and how those wars still resonate to this day. And how they manifest themselves in the dialogue we are having now (between liberals and conservatives).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Shadowfax: “Spasibo”? Uh-oh, now we’ve got the Russians involved?

I brought up Marquez and Vargas Llosa largely because I thought their respective writings had some bearing on the topic at hand. Marquez is something of a disappointment to me, in that he is an apologist for Castro (something that Vargas Llosa has taken him to task for in the past).

I also brought it up in the context of fascism, communism and republicanism. Rus linked a piece from Orwell’s “Homage to Catalonia”, which I personally think is some of his best writing. The Spanish Civil War also provides an excellent backdrop to the thread given the history of that conflict and the involvement of the Germans, Italians and Soviets.

We get could really discursive and go off on a fresh tangent regarding “wars of liberation” that pitted various ideologies against each other and how those wars still resonate to this day. And how they manifest themselves in the dialogue we are having now (between liberals and conservatives).

[Author]

Posts