Hillary Calling Obama a Radical Muslim?

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Jesus Christ, are we going to have to deal with this kind of BS for the next 2 years? Man I can just see Hannity's red face and festuring gob spouting this kind of nonsnese and tools like ProJo parroting it on this board.

Hey as the OP points out, it is supposedly Hillary and friends who brought this story to light.

Why would the Republicans go after Obama this early? We'd rather watch Obama and Hillary slug it out for the next 15+ months.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Who knows? Could be that in towns where the authorities were 100% white, with a heritage of lynching and oppressing blacks, that no one even cared to document the attacks and losses.

Edit : I do find it unintentionally funny that you're still heehawing on about Clinton so many years down the line. I disliked Clinton deeply, but would take him any day of the week over the buttmonkeys we have running the show now. Is the best defense to this absolutely horrible administration and modern Republican treason always going to be

The bolded part explains why the leader of the NAACP himself does not know of any church burnings, even the NAACP did not care to record or remember the burnings.

I am not heehawing about Clinton; I mentioned Democrats in general and their seeming tendency to embellish and used Clinton as an example, along with Biden. This would have died if you had not insisted in defending Clinton for an obvious lie. For someone who claims to dislike him you put a lot of effort into defending his false story.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn


Why would the Republicans go after Obama this early?

Because they are afraid of him.

 

[Genx87]

Heh I guess it is ok to paint your opponents this way when you are on the left.

I still cant stop cracking a smile at Ted "I cant put the drink down" Kennedy calling him Obama Bin Laden.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Who knows? Could be that in towns where the authorities were 100% white, with a heritage of lynching and oppressing blacks, that no one even cared to document the attacks and losses.

Edit : I do find it unintentionally funny that you're still heehawing on about Clinton so many years down the line. I disliked Clinton deeply, but would take him any day of the week over the buttmonkeys we have running the show now. Is the best defense to this absolutely horrible administration and modern Republican treason always going to be

The bolded part explains why the leader of the NAACP himself does not know of any church burnings, even the NAACP did not care to record or remember the burnings.

I am not heehawing about Clinton; I mentioned Democrats in general and their seeming tendency to embellish and used Clinton as an example, along with Biden. This would have died if you had not insisted in defending Clinton for an obvious lie. For someone who claims to dislike him you put a lot of effort into defending his false story.

lol whatever, you mention Clinton in every other thread. Go through my 500 or so posts, and you'll only find a handful even mentioning him, and usually I'm insulting him. What I do know is that through the south, there is a deep seeded swath of hate and intolerance that continues right to this day. Even in the 21st century, we've had church fires. Only now, they are much more likely to be reported and recorded. In the 50s and 60s, do you think the authorities gave a crap? The basic fact remains that extreme hostility and racism was a daily reality in that part of the country, and the underlying truth is obvious. Hmm, and I suppose Bush has never lied

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why would the Republicans go after Obama this early?

Because they are afraid of him.

Why would be afraid of him? He has no experience and nothing to run on. He is a good speaker that is it.

Put him up against a Republican who is a good speaker and who has a history of accomplishments and it will not be good for Obama.

The fact that he is black is nearly meaningless because the Democrats already get 90% of the black vote, he is no help at all in that category. Which is why a Richardson is more of a threat to Republicans since he might bring Latino voters onboard.

Please explain the ?afraid of him? comment to me.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why would the Republicans go after Obama this early?

Because they are afraid of him.

Why would be afraid of him? He has no experience and nothing to run on. He is a good speaker that is it.

Put him up against a Republican who is a good speaker and who has a history of accomplishments and it will not be good for Obama.

The fact that he is black is nearly meaningless because the Democrats already get 90% of the black vote, he is no help at all in that category. Which is why a Richardson is more of a threat to Republicans since he might bring Latino voters onboard.

Please explain the ?afraid of him? comment to me.

You (like other GOPies) are afraid of him b/c he has many of the benefits of candidate GWB (new face, minimal political baggage, fundraising potential, middle America appeal) without many of the negatives (babbling, ignorance of the law, history, geography, and basic English grammar, dry drunk, trying to impress/top his father).

Simply put, the GOP won't have the luxury of Al Gore or John Kerry in 2008 . . . the two most significant reasons that Bush is a two-term failure. Personally, I hate the politics of 'can s/he win' being more significant than 'can s/he govern' but it looks like the days of meritocracy are over.