Not even David Barton could've done it better.

So I didn't actually read the link. I figured it was some bull**** nonsense. I just read it. Why the **** is this worth talking about??

you really are spoon fed bull**** by left wing media aren't you?

you know that both parties participated heavily in the deregulation of banks and that ultimately, greed in the government and banks from EVERYONE was the cause of the collapse and that blame gaming is just a tool from these already corrupt parties to try and grab power?

no one's ever pragmatic

independent party.jpg

**** this **** im voting for the tupac hologram

Scott Walker will win the recall election because Wisconsin is full of dip****s.

Wow, haven't seen a thread devolve like that for years.

1. I think it's kind of a cheap ploy, too.
2. I think it's business as usual, and not a very big deal, or anything to hang your hat on.
3. I think the GOP has become a sick, sad, starved mockery of what conservatives once were.
4. I don't think Sarn is racist, but I do think he's touting his team colors awfully hard.

He strikes me as the kind of guy who says thinks like, "why can't there be WHITE pride?? I can't be proud to be white??" or "why is there no WHITE history month?"

In other news, a company hired a marketing team to up talk their product and make them look good to customers.

its ok Sarn, i think i can clear this up. As someone who is decidedly NOT left wing i can with all certainty say that this is NOT a big deal. a campaign move? Eh, probably... but so is everything any politician say EVAAARRRRRR. when your the president you get to have your name plastered all over the white house website.

Now! what i find really disturbing is THIS piece of subliminal propaganda!

This is what is shown for the teaser image for an article on job loss/gains since 2008...ish
Now if you were to click on the article the previous image is replaced with THIS!!!!

Suddenly no more partisan Red VS. Blue???? its almost as if the gubbament is trying to suggest that you imagined the red and blue chart on your own!!! is it a coincidence that this has happened on an election year??? I THINK NOT!!!

Also just had to share this! this is also straight* from the whitehouse.gov site.... as their featured photo of the day no less.
I'm sure michelle is supposed to be the focal point... but, WHOA the pres is getting a little handsy with that large lady in the background!


ok... maybe some SLIGHT alterations

I see the swinging Obamas are great at foreplay.

It was getting better by the post

And this concludes tonight's episode of JK Is Right About Everything.

Okay, had to come back to this. Jarl, I wish I had your optimism, but there probably aren't enough rose-colored glasses to go around. The presidential race has tightened substantially in the past week and is now more or less within the margin of error. We are going to need substantial economic improvement in the next few months to be anything like certain of an Obama victory. as of right now, I believe this election is a virtual coin flip. Meanwhile, llibja's right to be skeptical of the recall effort, where Walker holds a five- to six-point lead.

Oddly, I quite LITERALLY haven't done ANY *****ing. I posted the article, and I stated my opinion that it was "sad" / "pathetic" and a "cheap trick".

...then I was told I was racist.

It's more of an implication from past behavior.

It's because you are a racist.

How sad.


He's very obviously using it as a cheap trick to further his re-election campaign.


Obama's being egotistical and spinning his way into history


it's a cheap trick, and honestly, kind of pathetic.


a shady, calculated CAMPAIGN move under the guise of American History, Patriotism, and Heritage.

So much sand in your vag that you could squat off the hood of your car as an inexpensive alternative to tire chains

.

"you'll find one or two references to something Obama has done to carry on that president's achievements."

"the RNC has pictured Obama in "world-changing events you didn't know Obama played a part in." Here you can see Obama landing in the New World with Christopher Columbus, attending Napolean's coronation, guest-lecturing with Albert Einstein and hanging out with Elvis and the Beatles."

This is conservative logic, folks. Apparently, carrying on the work of past presidents, to them, means you think that you facilitated the original work. You know what this reminds me of? http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

I'm a little disturbed that two of our most intelligent members feel the need to show how much they dislike Sarn. I know it only takes a few seconds to post, but it really isn't pleasant to read. It's also ironic that Sarn's supposed racism has somehow invoked a sort of lynch mob. I haven't seen Sarn derail a thread in a while, so why not back off if he decides to make one of his own? Yes, the issue really doesn't deserve a thread, but I was slightly amused. Nobody can deny that Obama is a very slick campaigner.

Regarding the issue of commemorative months, there already is an Irish-American Heritage Month in March. I'd also say that every month is English History month, in the sense that Anglo-American institutions themselves are, well, English. I don't think it's racist to be proud of this heritage either, especially since we have things like Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, and apparently also some others like Jewish American Heritage Month, Filipino American History Month, and Greek-American Heritage Month (according to Wikipedia).

Thank you for the compliment.

The tone of my posts would be a lot different if we were talking about a serious issue, but we aren't. The only reason this is even an issue is because Republicans always demand to control the discourse on all subjects and in all forums. They demand control over what people are allowed to talk about and what they are allowed to say, and if they don't get their way they resort to the lowest and most despicable complaints of anti-patriotism and persecution. The complaints about the White House website are only novel for their target; they've been using the exact same strategy for every television channel, newspaper and major website that dares to talk about an issue the Republicans deem controversial.

That's why you aren't getting effortposts about this issue. It's disgusting, and anybody who helps the Republicans perpetuate this strategy, this fundamentally anti-free speech, anti-freedom of the press garbage deserves as much vitriol and bile as the rest of us can stand to serve.

Yes, but Obama killed bin Laden.

I know that seems like a petty thing to cling to, but Obama killed bin Laden. And he can easily spin it to say that he also got us out of iraq and contributed to the overthrow of Gadaffi. Meanwhile, there's not a single portion of the republican party that's excited for Mitt Romney to be their nominee. Romney lacks a passionate base, has received nothing but constant criticism and humiliation in the media, and runs on a platform of "Well, what do you think? Yeah, I was thinking that too."

-Now, a president who actually ran on an actual platform of "Say, what do you think? Yeah, let's do that," that would be interesting. Like, if he put every piece of legislation that crossed his desk to an electronic referendum, or something. Of course, there's probably no greater way to obliterate our entire republic than to as the internet to vote whether to veto or approve legislation, but it's an interesting thought.

Interesting, Jon'C; I guess that nobody who has thought about and cares about rational public discourse can be anything other than distressed at how the right attempts to control the vocabulary and to manipulate issues, really to fit a reality they have projected. (This tells me it's not a personal issue with Sarn.)

I used to sympathize with what seems to be conservativism's primary beef with rational public discorse: namely, that just talking about an issue on NPR is, to a degree, more about self-fullfillment than action, and that the top-down government solutions these kind of public debates facilitate are often worse than or hide the root problem, or create new ones. The intellectual right (no, I'm not talking about AM radio, which may cite Burke and Hayek, but is anything but intellectual) does offer a rather intoxicating bottom-up approach to civics. However, conservatives today have created an absolute nightmare by injecting their purely imaginary, axiomatic reality as some sort of substitute for arguments or facts they don't like. Even in cases where the nature of the public debate they decry really does lack the practical common sense that a consistent ideology better provides, almost always the very core of the modern conservative bowel movement seems to be based on some kind of psychiatric disorder.

You americans are so funny.

At least in Canada, we know we're ****ed sideways up the bumhole by *any* polititian, whoever's in power. We don't debate so aggressively over which buttf*ck feels better.

In all honesty it often surprises me just how aggressive the two sides in America can be; to the point that when one side calls you Democrat or whatever, it's meant as an insult. Is it not even possible to consider aspects from both parties and genuinely decide which is the better offer without just throwing handbags at each other? Don't get me wrong, even in the UK people will often vote for one specific party because they always have done and their parents always have done, but it's certainly not to the extent that being called Conservative or Labour is an insult. Craziness.

uh.. huh.

so, Me: "I think it's sad how Obama distorted a site dedicated to American history and heritage to turn it into a campaign ad."
Rest of you: "You're a racist!"

I'm not really sure how to argue that any further, so I guess I'm done with this thread. Have fun circle jerkin'.

no, this thread needs to continue, there is some comedic gold here, JonC's posts on the first page were making me rofl

This thread couldve had potential for some interesting talk but instead turned into a **** fest real fast, so now its doomed to continue in that direction

Irony, mother****er, do you speak it?

That is a much software, more reasonable way of rephrasing all the lynchy comments you've already made.

really? Show me ONE "lynchy" comment I've made...

I was going to ask to see where he mentioned Obama's race at all. While I think Sarn's picking the low hanging fruit, he's certainly not digging up the roots.

Just the tone of all his earlier comments. "Pathetic," "egotistical," "cheap trick," vs. "this is kinda sad." His initial posts were EWW GROSS YOU GUYS LOOK WHAT OBAMA IS DOING in tone. Now it's "hey, I don't really agree with this."

Tone matters a lot, and Sarn is terrible at conveying it.

wait so "terrible at conveying tone" is the same as racist? Well damn...

Possibly hyperbole, possibly inference from past posts.

It's not that you're being directly racist in this thread, it's that we already know you are racist so it's pretty easy to make the connection that your comments are race fueled.

And no, there's no "difference in tone" between my earlier posts and my later ones. The difference is you're starting to realize you over-reacted after a couple rational people have stepped up and said "yeah the reaction to his posts was a little severe" and so you're back pedaling by saying that MY tone is calming down. In reality my tone was never rash to begin with.

You aren't very good at this.

Ok, find me a post on ANY THREAD on this forum where I've demonstrated racism (not to be confused with a dislike for President Obama, unless I tied it in with, or even MENTIONED, his race). Then I will concede that you all are not a bunch of hypocritical bigots.

DEAL!



All from one thread:







You went on to derail that thread from a discussion of President Obama's religion, to a discussion of terrorist groups infiltrating our country. I wonder how that happened.

That's what I can dig up quickly. You are a racist.