Who the hell is "atg"?eleven bravo wrote:
fuck off atgBlue Herring wrote:
So, out of 300,000,000 people, Obama is the best we can get, Palin being the closest contender.
Seriously? This is why I hate politics. Everyone's too busy arguing over stupid shit like reality shows and birth certificates instead of the actual issues. No wonder nobody is capable of thinking critically, this is supposedly the most serious tier of society and it looks like two teenage boys arguing about which cheerleader is hotter.
in quotes no less
Tu Stultus Es
An old bf2s member that got banned, used to be a mod.Blue Herring wrote:
Who the hell is "atg"?eleven bravo wrote:
fuck off atgBlue Herring wrote:
So, out of 300,000,000 people, Obama is the best we can get, Palin being the closest contender.
Seriously? This is why I hate politics. Everyone's too busy arguing over stupid shit like reality shows and birth certificates instead of the actual issues. No wonder nobody is capable of thinking critically, this is supposedly the most serious tier of society and it looks like two teenage boys arguing about which cheerleader is hotter.
Edit: I miss him actually.
Last edited by War Man (2011-04-29 01:01:36)
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
I think you've confused the question. The question isn't "who is more qualified to star in a reality show?". I agree with your logic though. Being a loser just might be a prerequisite.War Man wrote:
'Cause he became president instead of lost.Kmar wrote:
He hasn't starred in a reality show.War Man wrote:
What makes Obama more qualified than Palin exactly?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Is there much of a difference between being a 'loser", and being propped up your entire life? Not sure how Palin is a bigger loser than Obama, Palin did everything on her own. Obama did nothing on his own, he was and is a puppet tied to strings.Kmar wrote:
I think you've confused the question. The question isn't "who is more qualified to star in a reality show?". I agree with your logic though. Being a loser just might be a prerequisite.War Man wrote:
'Cause he became president instead of lost.Kmar wrote:
He hasn't starred in a reality show.
The hilarity of the critique you provide here is you're saying all this after two terms of having Bush as President. Very droll.
Why is that? Bush worked in the private sector, Bush was in the military, Bush started off in the lower ranks of politics... Obama did nothing of the sort, what is so hilarious? A nobel prize for "hope"? I mean c'mon.Jaekus wrote:
The hilarity of the critique you provide here is you're saying all this after two terms of having Bush as President. Very droll.
Last edited by lowing (2011-04-29 01:33:53)
Yes there is a literal difference. In the political arena she was a loser.lowing wrote:
Is there much of a difference between being a 'loser", and being propped up your entire life? Not sure how Palin is a bigger loser than Obama, Palin did everything on her own. Obama did nothing on his own, he was and is a puppet tied to strings.Kmar wrote:
I think you've confused the question. The question isn't "who is more qualified to star in a reality show?". I agree with your logic though. Being a loser just might be a prerequisite.War Man wrote:
'Cause he became president instead of lost.
Nobody outside of AK gave a crap about Palin until McCain slipped her on his ticket. Most Americans didn't even know who she was. She is the epitome of ridding coat tails. Palin is still, to this day, standing on McCain's shoulders.
You say that the media "has" to go after Palin's wardrobe because there is nothing else to do. Erm, no that is just in addition to material she provides on her own. You don't think that the media reports on Obama's eating habits because they have nothing else to write about do you?
She plays the victim of the media whilst simultaneously sticking her mug on any network that will oblige her. I don't buy the victim of the media thing when you willfully make it your livelihood. Sorry, that's just ridiculous.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
She was a loser in the sense that she and McCain lost the election, she is not a loser however. You have a problem with her not being known before she was thrust in the national spot light? Well, who heard of Obama outside of illinois before he was thrust into the national spot light? There is no difference. Why would you hang your hat on that?Kmar wrote:
Yes there is a literal difference. In the political arena she was a loser.lowing wrote:
Is there much of a difference between being a 'loser", and being propped up your entire life? Not sure how Palin is a bigger loser than Obama, Palin did everything on her own. Obama did nothing on his own, he was and is a puppet tied to strings.Kmar wrote:
I think you've confused the question. The question isn't "who is more qualified to star in a reality show?". I agree with your logic though. Being a loser just might be a prerequisite.
Nobody outside of AK gave a crap about Palin until McCain slipped her on his ticket. Most Americans didn't even know who she was. She is the epitome of ridding coat tails. Palin is still, to this day, standing on McCain's shoulders.
You say that the media "has" to go after Palin's wardrobe because there is nothing else to do. Erm, no that is just in addition to material she provides on her own. You don't think that the media reports on Obama's eating habits because they have nothing else to write about do you?
She plays the victim of the media whilst simultaneously sticking her mug on any network that will oblige her. I don't buy the victim of the media thing when you willfully make it your livelihood. Sorry, that's just ridiculous.
Palin is not a victim of the media, she does however take unfair shots at her personal life that have nothing to do with the national stage. Obama is questioned on shit that does concern the nation and by doing so you are a racist.
Palin has successes and failures, such is life. Obama has no failures because he has been propped up his entire life. This does not make him a winner it makes him a puppet
Why the fuck are you STILL arguing about credentials? As I said before, the elections are over. Obama won. He's the president now, his past work should be out of the picture. If you want to criticize the man by all means do so on his work as a President instead of this inane shit.
I don't care if you want to judge his character, judge him on what he's doing NOW as your president. Surely that's 10.000x more important than anything he may or may not have done in the past. Palin lost and is undoubtedly unqualified for the job, get over it.
I don't care if you want to judge his character, judge him on what he's doing NOW as your president. Surely that's 10.000x more important than anything he may or may not have done in the past. Palin lost and is undoubtedly unqualified for the job, get over it.
inane little opines
"Thrust" into the national spotlight? ..lol. Did someone hold a gun to her head? The bump McCain gave her was the best thing that could have ever happened to her financially, and she jumped at the opportunity. I had heard of Obama before his campaign. I remember the speech he gave at the DNC in 2004. That is what really propelled him forward. Also, I'm not hanging my hat on anything. You are the one claiming Palin didn't have any help making a name for herself when she clearly did. I'm more of a realist, and acknowledge that everyone at that level gets some sort of break at some point.lowing wrote:
She was a loser in the sense that she and McCain lost the election, she is not a loser however. You have a problem with her not being known before she was thrust in the national spot light? Well, who heard of Obama outside of illinois before he was thrust into the national spot light? There is no difference. Why would you hang your hat on that?Kmar wrote:
Yes there is a literal difference. In the political arena she was a loser.lowing wrote:
Is there much of a difference between being a 'loser", and being propped up your entire life? Not sure how Palin is a bigger loser than Obama, Palin did everything on her own. Obama did nothing on his own, he was and is a puppet tied to strings.
Nobody outside of AK gave a crap about Palin until McCain slipped her on his ticket. Most Americans didn't even know who she was. She is the epitome of ridding coat tails. Palin is still, to this day, standing on McCain's shoulders.
You say that the media "has" to go after Palin's wardrobe because there is nothing else to do. Erm, no that is just in addition to material she provides on her own. You don't think that the media reports on Obama's eating habits because they have nothing else to write about do you?
She plays the victim of the media whilst simultaneously sticking her mug on any network that will oblige her. I don't buy the victim of the media thing when you willfully make it your livelihood. Sorry, that's just ridiculous.
Palin is not a victim of the media, she does however take unfair shots at her personal life that have nothing to do with the national stage. Obama is questioned on shit that does concern the nation and by doing so you are a racist.
Palin has successes and failures, such is life. Obama has no failures because he has been propped up his entire life. This does not make him a winner it makes him a puppet
Not everyone that questions Obama is called a racist. However, making that statement is indeed a way for the accuser to play victim themselves. "Oh look I can't even make a point without being called a racist .. yada yada". That isn't to say that it doesn't happen sometimes, but it goes both ways.
Palin has for years and years claimed that the media has it in for her. Virtually all politicians on the national stage have their personal lives examined. The Obama's are no exception. However, if you're going to invite camera's into your home and make sweeping judgment calls on morality don't expect the spotlight to easily fade away. Obama is no more a puppet than Palin is. They both pander to the appropriate people.
I'm no big fan of Obama. But if you think I'm going to get in line behind Palin you're nuts.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Lighten up Francis. No need to get all emotional about either of them. Obama's presidency reflects a string of patterns that got him there. To say Obama's past and lack of any meaningful self earned accomplishments has nothing to do with him now as president is sort of naive n my opinion.Shocking wrote:
Why the fuck are you STILL arguing about credentials? As I said before, the elections are over. Obama won. He's the president now, his past work should be out of the picture. If you want to criticize the man by all means do so on his work as a President instead of this inane shit.
I don't care if you want to judge his character, judge him on what he's doing NOW as your president. Surely that's 10.000x more important than anything he may or may not have done in the past. Palin lost and is undoubtedly unqualified for the job, get over it.
Please don't lecture me on what I need to get over, when all I am doing is discussing, if anyone is holding onto events a little too tight it would be you based on your emotional postings.
This is where it's at. Really.Shocking wrote:
If you want to criticize the man by all means do so on his work as a President instead of this inane shit.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
He's simply continuing on the same path where Bush left off. I don't see anything special about his presidency, especially not in regards to his past. Unless being a state senator for 12 years is relevant in the field of promising things and not delivering on them, which is typically something every politician does, guess that counts for something.lowing wrote:
Lighten up Francis. No need to get all emotional about either of them. Obama's presidency reflects a string of patterns that got him there. To say Obama's past and lack of any meaningful self earned accomplishments has nothing to do with him now as president is sort of naive n my opinion.
I'm calm as can be. I'm simply calling this 'discussion' on what it is.lowing wrote:
Please don't lecture me on what I need to get over, when all I am doing is discussing, if anyone is holding onto events a little too tight it would be you based on your emotional postings.
inane little opines
Kmar is awesome etc etc etcKmar wrote:
"Thrust" into the national spotlight? ..lol. Did someone hold a gun to her head? The bump McCain gave her was the best thing that could have ever happened to her financially, and she jumped at the opportunity. I had heard of Obama before his campaign. I remember the speech he gave at the DNC in 2004. That is what really propelled him forward. Also, I'm not hanging my hat on anything. You are the one claiming Palin didn't have any help making a name for herself when she clearly did. I'm more of a realist, and acknowledge that everyone at that level gets some sort of break at some point.lowing wrote:
She was a loser in the sense that she and McCain lost the election, she is not a loser however. You have a problem with her not being known before she was thrust in the national spot light? Well, who heard of Obama outside of illinois before he was thrust into the national spot light? There is no difference. Why would you hang your hat on that?Kmar wrote:
Yes there is a literal difference. In the political arena she was a loser.
Nobody outside of AK gave a crap about Palin until McCain slipped her on his ticket. Most Americans didn't even know who she was. She is the epitome of ridding coat tails. Palin is still, to this day, standing on McCain's shoulders.
You say that the media "has" to go after Palin's wardrobe because there is nothing else to do. Erm, no that is just in addition to material she provides on her own. You don't think that the media reports on Obama's eating habits because they have nothing else to write about do you?
She plays the victim of the media whilst simultaneously sticking her mug on any network that will oblige her. I don't buy the victim of the media thing when you willfully make it your livelihood. Sorry, that's just ridiculous.
Palin is not a victim of the media, she does however take unfair shots at her personal life that have nothing to do with the national stage. Obama is questioned on shit that does concern the nation and by doing so you are a racist.
Palin has successes and failures, such is life. Obama has no failures because he has been propped up his entire life. This does not make him a winner it makes him a puppet
Not everyone that questions Obama is called a racist. However, making that statement is indeed a way for the accuser to play victim themselves. "Oh look I can't even make a point without being called a racist .. yada yada". That isn't to say that it doesn't happen sometimes, but it goes both ways.
Palin has for years and years claimed that the media has it in for her. Virtually all politicians on the national stage have their personal lives examined. The Obama's are no exception. However, if you're going to invite camera's into your home and make sweeping judgment calls on morality don't expect the spotlight to easily fade away. Obama is no more a puppet than Palin is. They both pander to the appropriate people.
I'm no big fan of Obama. But if you think I'm going to get in line behind Palin you're nuts.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
lol still arguing about palin. you guys are nuts. and kmar i expect better from you.
Palin is the best President you'll ever have.
Fuck Israel
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
If the original document was in a bound volume (as reflected by the curvature of the left hand side of the certificate), how can the green patterned background of the document's safety paper be so seamless?
• Why, if Obama was born on August 4, 1961, was the “Date Accepted by Local Reg.” four days later on August 8, 1961?
• What is the significance of the smudges in the box containing the name of the reported attendant?
• David A. Sinclair, the M.D. who purportedly signed the document, died nearly eight years ago at age 81. So he is conveniently unavailable to answer questions about Obama’s reported birth.
• In the “This Birth” box there are two mysterious Xs above “Twin” and “Triplet.” Is there a sibling or two unaccounted for?
• What is the significance of the mysterious numbers, seen vertically, on the document’s right side?
• Finally, the “Signature of Local Registrar” in box 21 may be a desperate attempt at establishing the document’s Hawaiian authenticity. Note to forgers: It is spelled “Ukulele.”
has to be a troll.
• Why, if Obama was born on August 4, 1961, was the “Date Accepted by Local Reg.” four days later on August 8, 1961?
• What is the significance of the smudges in the box containing the name of the reported attendant?
• David A. Sinclair, the M.D. who purportedly signed the document, died nearly eight years ago at age 81. So he is conveniently unavailable to answer questions about Obama’s reported birth.
• In the “This Birth” box there are two mysterious Xs above “Twin” and “Triplet.” Is there a sibling or two unaccounted for?
• What is the significance of the mysterious numbers, seen vertically, on the document’s right side?
• Finally, the “Signature of Local Registrar” in box 21 may be a desperate attempt at establishing the document’s Hawaiian authenticity. Note to forgers: It is spelled “Ukulele.”
has to be a troll.
Layers?
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
I don't condemn her, I'm saying that you're putting so much of your argument on the strength of her experience in the private sector when she amounted to little more than a fishwife. What's with the focus on the private sector anyway? What I've said twice and what you've yet to counter me on is that the office of President is a public office. Back to Palin; sure she was 'attacked' for her wardrobe - but that was less to do with Palin and more to do with the fact that she's a woman and the media loves to concentrate on irrellevent details like what she's wearing. The did it with Hillary's pant-suits as well. As to her daughter, I'd say that was an issue because of Palin's stance on abstinence and it was considered a contradiction when her daughter became an unwed teenage mother. Make sweeping judgements on the morality of others and you're going to find that it may bite you in the arse. The rest of the criticism was linked to the fact that through her own actions during the campaign she showed herself to be completely unsuitable for a role in top-level federal politics.lowing wrote:
If you condemn Palin for having LITTLE experience in the private sector, then you must, by default, condemn Obama even more for having NO experience in the private sector. He graduated with a law degree, yet never practiced law and EXCELLED through the ranks to the office of president. His resume is claimed to be a fraud, ( i am not saying it, I have no idea if it is or isn't) by people who know him and work with him. He is known to have kept circles with felons and unscrupulous people.
Their are no such distractions with Palin, so the left must bash her wardrobe, her daughter, etc and claim anyone that bashes Obama is racist. Sorry, but the chips against Obama stack higher than Palin.
Oh and by the way "how it got to this" was I made a comment that Palin at least had a job before she became a national figure. Kinda set off a firestorm with posts trying to convince me that Obama had one as well. Very very defensive about their "transparent" superman
Now I would agree that the race card gets played by Obama's supporters but it's certainly not played as much as some think it is. I've got to be honest, the people I see using it most is the less-than-intelligent critics of Obama who when spouting some incorrect piece of trivia and being subsequently shut down immediately go on the defensive by claiming that "you're just attacking my criticism because you think I'm being racist".
Also, you keep saying Obama has been propped up his entire life. Aside from being selected by his party for candidacy, (which is part of the electoral process,) where else is this in play? Also, how does this differ from Palin being 'propped up' by the Republican party picking her for McCain's running mate? She certainly made a respectable reality TV career out of it for herself.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
I'm not sure about that video, but the comments are hilarious.
Always the Corrupt Chicago politician, Scamming the Whole country!
He Loves the Controversy, because he Uses Everything to Demonize his Opponents.
I wish to God that people knew how the USA will be Destroyed if he is Not defeated!.
What I don't have doubts about is this socialist is a fake. There isn't any proof, any document, any witness that now can dispel the feeling I have for a cheat and liar. There is no going back once he has dishonored his office and endangered our country. One thing is for sure, life will never be the same in America, for what little innocence that was left has been corrupted.
These people crack me up...He is a radical muslim sleeper who has placed his men in all the highest places. Shit is getting ready to hit the fan, prepare Americans..
I'm sorry, my stupidity quota has been filled for many many months now, I need to go have a rest.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
yes you are so damn smart oh holy one. i bow to you.Ty wrote:
I'm sorry, my stupidity quota has been filled for many many months now, I need to go have a rest.
bush was a royal fuck up at all of those thingslowing wrote:
Why is that? Bush worked in the private sector, Bush was in the military, Bush started off in the lower ranks of politics... Obama did nothing of the sort, what is so hilarious? A nobel prize for "hope"? I mean c'mon.Jaekus wrote:
The hilarity of the critique you provide here is you're saying all this after two terms of having Bush as President. Very droll.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/