Obama Using Sexist Language? (1 Viewer)

[SoonerJim]

The grand Progressive realignment of America has been a staple of higher leftist opinion since the stock market crash of 1987, after which Newsweek devoted a cover story titled "the Death of Reaganism". The problem is, those policies generate income, which even the Nation and the American Prospect acknowledge.

Obama represents the latest permutation to rerout America into Progressive Nirvana, following in the footsteps of Kennedy, Mondale, Hart, Dukakis, Jackson, Gore, Kerry, and Edwards. His rhetorical gift helps in the key function of the Executive branch: to persuade. He can keep his campaign confined to tonality and win. McCain can be Bob Dole without the humor, a man who for electoral demographic purposes could have been in WW2, if not earlier.

As long as the electorate desires "change", the particulars are of less consequence. The most qualified and accomplished Republican who sought and achieved electoral office was a boy wonder engineer who was refined, widely traveled, and brought the world out of WW1 torpor and poverty. Herbert Hoover had numerous routes to stave off a severe recession, and did everything wrong. The result was tonality sent over the radio to a nation ill-clothed and fed. Franklin Roosevelt, if current times demand it, is Obama's antecedent.

 

[Shawn]

Hey guys, I'm a little late checking in on this thread... Didn't think my comment would get that much of a reaction. Yeah, it was meant to be funny. Oh, well.

Re: Shawn. Not sure what you mean by track record, unless you are talking about me supporting Fred Thompson. Other than that. You know I'm easy going.

I was purposely trying not to denigrate you, just to address the fact that you're a conservative poster, and to my recollection, not prone to making sarcastic remarks. That's all.

 

[Sabine]

So are you saying that the candidate you are actively campaigning for, Hillary Clinton, should be also looked to for words, or have actions (whatever they are) been enough?

TPS

I'm not sure how you got there from my post. I was happy to leave the Obama rally unheckled, but I'm always happy to talk to you so I'll add a little more.

As I undestand it, you're position was that some should just stay out of this conversation because they:

1. "... are brainwashed by their talking points and spitting them back up like a baby satiated on its liquid meal..."; and/or
2. "... only go to sources that affirm [their] opinion (or shape it depending on one's prowess and experience) that [they're] just going to become a moving mouthpiece for someone else."

Well, that cuts both ways. Many here have no clue how Clinton's image came about, and we can't expect them to. Some were still wet behind the ears, playing Power Rangers, or wasn't interested in much beyond getting their driver's license or laid for the first time. The forces in play on the Hill were simply not a part of their world. They've not seen enough changing of the guards to recognize the patterns that follow which, as you may remember, played a huge role in the image that is perpetuated still to this day about Hillary Clinton.

Still, I'm interested in what they have to say. I find the whole process to be a fascinating course in human studies.

 

[TPS]

Not necessarily, but if it means I don't have to answer, you can go with that. :17:

TPS