self deleted thread

self deleted (BO thought police infraction, violation of section 1845, daring to question a statement by Her Majesty)

Normal people are cynical and reluctant about politics, else we would not call avid participants things like radical and activist (or radical activists, even).

....Oh, I just noticed who posted this. I see. Trying to spin this as a personal attack on non-0bama supporters. i.e. Michelle Obama should be ashamed to have thoughts like a normal person and Democrats should be angry that this is so. Uh ok. Whatever.

The article is pro-Obama and provides some insight on things other than his theme of "unity" and a "new politics." You know, we hear a lot about his poll numbers, fund-raising numbers, how many people showed up to see him speak, etc. but little about what he actually thinks. I apologize for daring to post a thread which sheds some light on what a candidate for president thinks.

There was no spin. I simply pointed out that apparently I, and 80% of Democrats, fail this "test" because we support someone other than BO. :crazy: Do you disagree with my interpretation of MO's remarks? If so, why? Thanks in advance. I look forward to your response.

You want to be offended so you decide arbitrarily that she was talking about non-Obama supporting Democrats rather than general election voters at large. Or, let's get more specific: you're taking it as a dig against anyone who supports Hillary Clinton, arbitrarily deciding that they must be failing this test. That's your spin and only exists because you prefer that it be so. You prefer that the woman's assumed to be talking like a cutthroat, hypersensitive political activist.

You don't even for one microsecond think of her as possibly speaking as if there is such a thing as fellow Democrats to her and that she might allow for the possibility that non Obama supporters actually want the country to get better, that you might actually be, oh, on the same freaking side from her perspective. Nope, can't be that. Who would waste valuable time and oxygen saying something that's not a secret dagger stabbing others in the back, front or flank.

You are of course, free to zero in on the absolute worst interpretation of what she said under the assumption that it must be so. I just feel like you're assuming that she's a hardcore hater of any Democrat who doesn't support her husband without any whiff of genuine evidence that such a thing is remotely true.

Sorry for ranting. I just get annoyed when normal people get beat up for their normality. Some of my best friends are normal people. No, really...

In favor of the worst possible interpretation. ;)

I phrased it as a question originally. It seems that she is referring to anyone who does not support Obama. Here is what I said in post 2, when I removed the prejudicial line in the OP: =I simply pointed out that apparently I, and 80% of Democrats, fail this "test" because we support someone other than BO.==

So I am clearly open to other possibilities.

I noticed the ellipsis. Perhaps what was edited out was relevant. Perhaps you are right and (when the edited out portion is taken into account) she was alluding to the GE, or maybe she was talking about whether people would look past race. I don't know for sure, hence the question. I did not flatly declare what she meant because I am not sure what she meant. So why post the comment? To find out if anyone knows of any prior statements she has made that shed light on what she actually meant.

This was "when will you stop stabbing 80% of Democrats in the back for being unclean".

If she meant that, she could've said it's a test for Democratic Party primary voters, not for the country. Perhaps she had something else in mind?

Just musing.

Of course, you come down from Mt. Sinai with the "real" interpretration of her remarks and went on a rant in which you spun my daring to question the statement. Lesson learned. I will never question the the First Couple ever again.

:applause:

Mario, you just played Wolf to her/his Moore.

You may not notice it but you have a borderline fixation on posting negative comments about Obama. You don't have to vote for him, but I really am confused by what you hope to accomplish with your actions.

It was nice spin and kagemusha is guilty of essentially what she/he is accusing me of doing.

==You may not notice it but you have a borderline fixation on posting negative comments about Obama.==

This is a discussion forum and I state opinions on all the candidates. I have been critical of HRC numerous times and I have not heard HRC supporters respond in the way BO supporters do to criticism, or even anything that is not 110% glowing.

It is true that after the D-Punjab memo I went on a 2-3 week crusade against Obama but I saw the light and stopped. Since then (this happened around 6-29/6/30) can you list what anti-Obama threads I have posted? I have criticized him in replies, but I have also criticized Clinton, Richardson, Kucinich, Gravel, and Biden.

Senator Dodd did not promote a hit piece. He expressed his policy disagreement on a political issue with another politician (which happens now and then in politics). The press, which covers politics, wrote a story about it (they once in a while will write a story or two about disagreements between candidates). A thread was posted quoting the article and Dodd on a political discussion forum.

Since draftie is all a flutter about "negative comment #355 and counting", how about a NICE Obama comment?

~~~


(arcticle too lengthy to post.. but will be released today from Senator John Kerry's North Dakota Campaign Chairman regarding Senator Obama and "experience":

Article > http://www.in-forum.com/Opinion/articles/171320 )

I am tired of the baseless personal attacks that any criticism or even questioning of *HIM* generates. What is the point of dealing with it? In light of that, I elected to delete the thread, which included a pro-Obama article.

Some BO supporters need to get a grip. They view anything that is not issued by the Obama campaign as part of a nefarious anti-Obama plot. Witness the recent threads on CNN's polling and the Newsweek Obama cover story. The polls are accurate. The cover story is another in a series of glowing coverage in the magazine of BO (no one is whining about the glowing story, only the fact that Newsweek is covering news on terrorism and mentioned it on the same cover that *HE* graced). Yet, both are allegedly rigged to make poor old Obama look bad. Yeah.

You do not see these odd reactions from backers of any other candidate, particularly HRC supporters, who are subjected to a daily diet of anti-HRC posts (90% of them from BO supporters...). They handle it, present counterarguments and facts when possible. If Obama makes it to the GE, it will be hilarious to see how some of his paranoid supporters react when the right-wing machine cranks up against him for months. I don't think they (who represent a small slice of BO supporters, of course) will be able to handle that if they can't handle, say, a thread by WW pointing out Obama's support of Clinton's welfare reform.

As far as attacking anyone ---- look in the mirror.

BTW - you yourself responded to this thread twice AFTER you supposedly locked it.

If you quit creating threads for the sole purpose of dissing Democratic presidential candidates, maybe you wouldn't be met with such harsh comments from people who are SICK of it.

We have 8 excellent candidates --------- period.

I simply deleted the OP.

==If you quit creating threads for the sole purpose of dissing Democratic presidential candidates, maybe you wouldn't be met with such harsh comments from people who are SICK of it.==

Posting a pro-Obama article is "dissing" the Great Leader? Only in the warped minds of paranoid BO fans (a minority of BO supporters), who think even glowing pro-Obama cover stories and normal polls are rigged to get him.

Have you complained about the daily stream of posts that criticize or question HRC that BO supporters post each night? Thanks in advance.

Second, contrast the responses of HRC supporters to the daily criticisms to that of the paranoid wing of Obama supporters. William, Tellurian, wyldwolf, SaveElmer, ElizabethDC, and the few other common HRC supporters do a fantastic job of making counterarguments, presenting pro-HRC facts. I do not always agree with their posts but I cannot dispute the strength of their arguments. The paranoid wing of BO fans, in contrast, simply attack the messenger and ignore whatever is actually said in the OP. Sometimes they attack the thread without even knowing what is in it. I know. I once posted a pro-BO thread during my 2-3 week crusade against him after the D-Punjab memo and I was attacked for it. :rofl:

But you know what -- you deleted this thread. So let's ignore it and let it DIE a quick death.

Seriously you need to get a grip.

If you can't tell people are fucking pissed off at the Bush tactics of demonizing opponents.

Mario, it isn't a coincidence. Please stop it.

We have some BO fans who are very paranoid. I think I might vote for BO if Edwards falters. Just seeing the reactions of the paranoid wing of his faction during the 8-9 months leading up to the GE will be priceless.

C-Span had a full Obama speech on and they did not edit out him coughing! OH NO! C-Span is out to get Obama. Brian Lamb is a DLC crony!

My favorite is an article about Obama getting cheap haircuts. It was a pro-Obama piece designed to contrast him to Edwards. Yet, since the article quoted BO's barber, who happened to be a Muslim, it was deemed by some to be a planted story just to get out the word that BO's barber is Muslim, which somehow was an essential part of the evil DLC/Freemason/HRC/Illumanti/CIA plot to sink the BO candidacy. :crazy:

==If you can't tell people are fucking pissed off at the Bush tactics of demonizing opponents.==

Even pro-Obama articles, pro-Obama cover stories, legitimate polls, etc. are classified as "Bush tactics of demonizing" Obama in the warped minds of some paranoid BO fans. You are a prime example. You asserted that a thread about a candidate criticizing another candidate fell into this category.

Can you list your complaints about the 20 anti-HRC threads posted each day? The anti-JE threads? How about the threads about other candidates in which there is one sentence, perhaps one word, that is not straight from the campaign. For instance, a pro-JE story which mentions the $400 haircut? Thanks in advance.

I defend them, some guy compared HRC to Nixon and Reagan, and my response along with a lot of other non HRC supporters was to tell him to back off. Although you are not as direct as him you seem to daily take little shots, like an annoying Chihuahua.

We are not paranoid Obama supporters, I will vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination. If Gore runs I could vote for him, a Gore/Obama ticket would be great in my opinion. You seem to be taking daily shots and I question your motive. Lighten up a bit, and have some fun.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So all negative posts about HRC are from Obama supporters. We believe Obama walks on water, O.K. fine again. Before being done with me, explain what you mean by "Obama brownshirts."

p.s. questioning positions is fine, if it becomes a daily habit the alarm goes off. You really remind me of some of the Bush supporters on the Hannity forum, just constant negative followed up by indignation.

Thaaaaaat's nice.