Friday, August 15, 2008

QOTD

Dr. Melissa Clouthier:
If Barack Obama was a white, skinny, first-time Senator with no experience besides community organizing, he WOULD NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED as a presidential candidate. It is BECAUSE he is black that he enjoys the support he does. His policies are typical leftist, quasi-socialist tripe. There is nothing new in Obama, except that he is “post-racial”. Whatever. He gives liberals of every stripe an opportunity to salve their guilt.
(via Conservative Grapevine)

16 comments:

OBloodyHell said...

Stating the obvious. People who vote for Obama are racist to the core.

bobn said...

Stating the utterly unproven - and unprovable, barring psychic powers.

Niether Carl, OBH, nor even Clouthier provide the slightest amount of evidence for this claim.

(Having "Dr." in front of your name does not give you any particular insight.)

I did not vote for Obama because he's black, I voted for him because he wasn't Hillary.

I think what has happened is that Bush has created an environment where anybody articulating "change" - even in the most vague terms - can get himself taken seriously - at least by Democrats.

I admit Obama's resume is a little thin. But really, was Bush-43's that much better? Without his daddy's name an influence, would anybody have ever taken him seriously?

Carl said...

bobn:

How 'bout this?

bobn said...

Carl,

Not one line from the linked WaPo editorial provides the least support for the thesis your post puts forth. It is a complete non-sequitor.

Do you have a program that just randomly chooses URLs, regardless of relationship to the topic under discussion? Only that, or sheer carelessness or dishonesty, explains your advancing of this WaPo link as support for this post.

Had your main post been "Mark Penn is a slimeball" then you would have had something.

Stop wasting my time.

OBloodyHell said...

.

> Stating the utterly unproven - and unprovable, barring psychic powers.

Niether Carl, OBH, nor even Clouthier provide the slightest amount of evidence for this claim.


bob. You're smokin' stuff. It's obviously good stuff, but you should avoid posting when on it.

What was that part about believing in Occam's Razor, before?

If the man has no business being considered for election... but he's black.

When a LOT of people specifically see it as relevant that... he is black.

Gee. I dunno. I cannot possibly grasp the notion that people are voting for him...

because he's black
.

That's racism.

Q. f'in E. f'in D.

> I did not vote for Obama because he's black, I voted for him because he wasn't Hillary.

1) So you make an exception. Gosh, I'm amazed that, among millions of voters, there are exceptions. Doesn't disprove the point. Yes, the statement made was "absolute". It's called hyperbole: "Exaggeration for effect". It does not mean that you can cite *one* *whole* exception and disprove the point.

2) So why did you not vote for anyone OTHER than Hillary? Why would you pick someone singlularly unqualified for the job of PotUS as the alternative to Hillary?

3) Sorry, bob. Only you know the real answer, but I don't think you've done enough soul searching to know it either. My suspicion is that you chose Obama for "anything but Hillary" because of unconscious racism. I'm not saying you're evil for it -- I'm saying that I believe you are ignorant of your racism. And this comes from that choice as much as the fact that you support a lot of liberal policies without rejecting them out of hand for their racism. Which I've already discussed, even taking your ignorance of the Condi things into account. Frankly, if you can listen to liberal sources so much that you DID NOT HEAR of the Condi/Colin issue prior to recently, and do so without throwing things at the TV in disgust, then you are seriously missing a lot when it comes to policies which are racist at the core. I have a hard time seeing all the media's racist crap just blithely thrown out there without getting into trouble for vandalizing someone's property -- spitting on it, shredding it, or throwing things at it. It disgusts me.

> Obama's resume is a little thin. But really, was Bush-43's that much better?

"A little thin"? WHAT DOES IT ACTUALLY HAVE IN IT of substance and relevance? Does he have ANY sort of executive experience AT ALL? Has he EVER been top man in ANY business venture, esp. a successful one? We KNOW he's never been top man in any executive governmental branch... has he even headed up any legislative committees? Has he ever been on the executive board of any substantial business venture? Exclude "honorary" positions and/or "reward for pushing our legislation" positions, pls.

As far as GWBush's, ummmm, does "Governor of one of the four largest states in the nation" have any possible significance? Hmmm? Do several failed business ventures matter (failure isn't as good as success, but it does offer a chance to learn, so, yes, it CAN be better than nothing -- and Bush's success as Gov of Texas more than balanced out his failured business ventures)

> Without his daddy's name an influence, would anybody have ever taken him seriously?

To get the Governorship of Texas, probably not. Once he'd done that, and done it fairly well, then, yes, easily.

> Not one line from the linked WaPo editorial provides the least support for the thesis your post puts forth. It is a complete non-sequitor.

Unjustified handwave. It's clearly relevant to both the charge of racism as well as the mindset.

Among other things, the not-so-subtle association with the idea that Obama DOES NOT represent, and has never experienced, "core values" (which I think you could definitely make an arguable but valid case for) in the USA -- the association between that idea and racism via the usage of "white supremacists". There's not the slightest reason to make that connection, except to try and associate ANY opposition with the foulest level of racism.

As though you HAD to be racist in order to take issue with this weakness in Obama's background, that he's never really connected with most of America, by birth, by upbringing on several levels, and by education and mentors. At no point does he have any extensive contact with mainstream America's thoughts, ideals, and values. NOWHERE. Columbia? Harvard? You mean two of the most left-leaning universities in the USA? Hawaii? Not quite the Heartland, izzit? A completely socialist mother? A racist preacher? And a pair of former Weathermen? Oh, yeah, he's just reaching out to his peeps in Kansas...

And, while the media do their best to shut down any attention paid to this whenever he speaks, it leaks through. His association with lunatics like Wright and Ayers. His comments made in re: Pennsylvania, West Va., and in California.

The man has no business being considered for PotUS. NONE WHATSOEVER.

And if he weren't black, he wouldn't be getting considered.

Q. f'in E. f'in D.


Further, they keep doing that, bob -- ANYTHING SAID which is negative about Obama is somehow "racist". They even toss the epithet out against each other.

You cannot possibly be against Obama *unless* it's because he's black.

This is Projection -- they are only FOR Obama because he's black.

And that sort of if-a-then-b-or-else-not-b error is a common logical fallacy of most people as it is. They, like most, miss the Pauli option:
On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague:
This isn't right. This isn't even wrong.
- Wolfgang Pauli -

Support for Obama isn't right. It's not even wrong. It's senseless. Why does it exist at all?

If elected, he is going to be the biggest disaster to hit the Presidency -- and America -- since Jimmy Carter.

Bigger, even. On both foreign and domestic policy, he has not the slightest clue what he is doing. He will not be PotUS for more than four years, but about the only possible benefit from it is that there will not be another Democrat elected PotUS in the next 50 years.

That's not worth it to me. There's too much shit going on right now to want that point proven: that the Dems are not capable of identifying and promoting a valid, effective executive candidate for the USA.

And that fact weakens the GOP, because it means that they don't have to *try* all that hard, either. They can push forth half-assed candidates like McCain and the rational voter has no other choice.

:-/

.

Carl said...

I agree with OBH. The WaPo editorial suggests anyone questioning Obama's qualifications is racist. QED.

Anonymous said...

Ageism and sexism is what kept Hillary Rodham Clinton, the most qualified of the Presidential candidates from being the Democratic nominee. People who vote for or against Obama because he is black are equally racist.

Anonymous said...

Ageism and sexism ARE what kept........ (sorry)

bobn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bobn said...

The WaPo editorial suggests anyone questioning Obama's qualifications is racist. QED.

Not QED.

Even if true, (this is one article by one guy, comparing one other guy to white supremacists - hardly proof of the general case), the WaPo article still completely fails to support your original post where you said that the majority of his supporters are voting *for* Obama only *because* he is black.

Very basic logical flaw. Tsk, Tsk. Maybe Carl needs some sleep, too.

As for obloodyhell, I . don't . feed the trolls.

Carl said...

bobn:

A second similar article. And I stand by the original point that much of Obama's support comes because he's black--because he's otherwise unqualified.

Anonymous said...

I agree that much of Obama's support is based on his being black. It removes the moral superiority stance of blacks who pointed fingers at whites for being racist. Now we are equal. Right?

I cannot understand what people saw in Ronald Reagan. Please explain. Don't think I've ever seen an emptier suit than Ronald Reagan.

I wonder who really makes the decisions for these puppet Presidents like Reagan and the Bush son and father. Anybody know?

Jack Welch? Others?

Carl said...

Anony:

I worked for the Reagan campaign, and in his first Administration, and you couldn't be more wrong. Read Reagan, In His Own Hand: The Writings of Ronald Reagan that Reveal His Revolutionary Vision for America for proof that Reagan was smart and that his ideas were his own. One anecdote I recall is from 1978, while preparing to run in 1980, when he asked his national security advisor if he (the advisor) would like to know Reagan's plan for U.S.-Soviet conflict in the cold war: "Let's win it."

bobn said...

Carl says:


A second similar article.


The only similarity between this article and the last is that this, too, totally fails to make your point. Which you knew, since you didn't quote even one sentence.

Let me know when you find those psychic pollsters. That's what it would take to support your post as written.

And I stand by the original point that much of Obama's support comes because he's black-because he's otherwise unqualified.

The second half of your sentence (even if true) fails to prove the first half.

This is politics - and American politics at that.

And I stand by my point that he is at least as qualified as Bush-43. (Moreso, in that he can speak in whole sentences and has served in national government.) Bush-43 just doesn't look, sound or act very bright.

I also stand by my original statement: "Stating the utterly unproven - and unprovable, barring psychic powers."


(Oh, and the "Dr." in "Dr. Melissa Clouthier" is apparently for chiropractic - nothing that would add any particular political acuteness.)

Carl said...

Both articles suggest that critique of Obama is racist--which is itself flogging for support because he's black. Unlike Bush 43, Obama has never been an executive. And as for experience (from September 1st National Review on dead tree, page 35):

"By Election Day, Obama will have spent 59 of the preceding 112 months campaigning for public office. . . Obama spent more of the past decade asking voters to promote him than did any other American. . .

But not that Obama is in a position of national influence, governing has taken up even less of his time. After making almost every vote in his first tow years in the U.S. Senate, Obama has missed almost half of the votes since January of 2007. GovTrack.US ranks his vote attendance as "exceedingly poor relative to peers. . .

We do not have a deep sense of how a President Obama would govern--because he hasn't governed much at all."

bobn said...

We do not have a deep sense of how a President Obama would govern--because he hasn't governed much at all.

And when he did some of it was truly vile.

I don't need to assume racism on the part of his supporters to dislike him. I've found some reasons of my own.

Although this does evoke racism.