roronoa3000
Banned
In the White House she'd be about as useful as a Jewish pig farmer.
Thank you. It's amazing. We agree on all counts. Rep to you my leftie friend.
:glugglug:
The only reason I speak of "sides" is because the lefties on this site are so cliche in their postings. They lean on tired old sound bites that they hear from their friends and other left thinkers.
If Al Gore had been elected in 2000, what do you think he would have done in response to 9/11?
The lowest common denominator of the left are those who sit around waiting for the government to provide a living for them because they feel it is owed to them due to some injustice that was done to their great, great, great grandparents.
I ask you Bodie54, which common denominator is lower?
Also, it takes a lot of guts for any Obama supporter to take shots at Sarah Palin for looking at notes when she is speaking publicly. Is it not the President who has the well deserved reputation for leaning on the aid of a teleprompter?
So do the "righties". Look in the mirror....it's you that you see.
Well, he sure as hell wouldn't have invaded a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with it.
My goodness that's an enormously broad brush you're using, but then again it's not atypical for white conservatives to claim to be experts on what it's like to be black.
The truth is, generations of black people learned the hardest way possible that conservatism was their enemy. That's the overwhelming reason they vote, en masse (including the non-welfare recipients, who of course are the majority) for democrats.
Well, in the '08 presidential election, of the 17% of all voters who'd attained post graduate degrees, 59% voted for Obama.
Obama also won the majority of votes from those with H.S. and college educations. And while the lowest income earners (and low income obviously doesn't necessarily equate to low intelligence) supported Obama, so did the highest income earners, 52% to 46% - despite the foreknowledge he was going to return their income taxes to Clinton era levels.
Beyond that, the GOP has clearly embraced an anti-intellectual, party-of-the-common-man philosophy/guise that's intended to appeal to the lowest common denominator. And it works! ...though not with minorities, who know better, from hard experience.
Well deserved? :rofl:
As has been repeatedly pointed out, anybody who claims Obama is lost without a prompter obviously gets their "news" from youtube and the right wing echo chamber. Please take the time to view the four presidential debates and/or his January Q&A session with House Republicans http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1-jasxb7NY and tell me again how helpless he is without a teleprompter![]()
![]()
Meanwhile Palin actually thought she could get away undetected using her black ink palm crib notes :o - what a pathetic display that was :anonymous ....and hardly her first of that kind.
She's obviously come a long way since junior high school :rofl:
Uh, he was referring to Iraq...I assume since most people tended to agree with Bush in going after AQ in Afghanistan that part isn't in dispute.Well, now that we've established that he wouldn't have done what Bush did, what would he have done?
The guy beat McCain straight up on the merits of the two candidates. The only reason why it was even that close (not that it was particularly) was because of all the negatives Obama had to wade through. Don't you have to consider what it might have been like without Wright, the negatives some associated with his name, the nightly attacks Fox "created" about so called terrorist ties and the burned feelings of those in his own party who were Clinton (Bill and Hill) supporters. The same guy with a different name sans the other nonsense cleans McCain's clock even more and probably any ten candidates the GOPers line up.You can quote voter statistics if you want, but I think we both know that in the last presidential election, after two terms with an unpopular president, a floundering economy, an ongoing war, and a candidate from the incumbent party who, although once a war hero, was really just a wishy-washy centrist who represented more of the same.
Anyone can stand in front of a podium with a speech someone else prepared and articulate it. That doesn't (or shouldn't) represent someone as particularly or "extremely intelligent". The American people and people in general give people far to much credit for that IMO.I'll give you that Obama is a decent public speaker, although he is nowhere near the likes of Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan. Since both of these former two term presidents were great behind a microphone, does that mean you give BOTH of them credit for being extremely intelligent, like you do with Obama?
Okay...name one Demo who is comparable to Palin and consistently comes off as she has and has gotten the pass.As for Sarah Palin, do you really consider that a "pathetic display"? I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, and I also think that if Mrs. Palin was a democrat, we wouldn't even be talking about this because you would have given her a pass on it.
I have already gone on the record on this site and said that I don't think Sarah was ready to be the Vice President of the United States. At the same time, I think it's highly unfair to label her as unintelligent.
She has served on the City Council, was a successful mayor, and was elected as Governor of the State of Alaska. You don't get that far being a dummy. Come on.![]()
Really? Have you heard her speak. A step above George Bush in the forming a sentence before opening mouth department. She ain't a dummy but she ain't very smart either. Jan Brewer is by far worse though.Originally Posted by Crazy4theBrat View Post
I have already gone on the record on this site and said that I don't think Sarah was ready to be the Vice President of the United States. At the same time, I think it's highly unfair to label her as unintelligent.
She has served on the City Council, was a successful mayor, and was elected as Governor of the State of Alaska. You don't get that far being a dummy. Come on.
Jan Brewer is by far worse though.