Obama to Edwards...You're kinda Cute

Hmmm...is this the love that dare not speaketh its name?

To this supporter, it's not just Edwards pretty face he sees It's not the clothes he wears, it's "substance":

Is Barack Hussein Obama trying to feed Ann Coulter even more material with this? He's every bit as cute as John Edwards in any event.

 

It's called mild sarcasm 777. He wasn't trying to bash Edwards, or feed Coulter, but I'm sure the remark has a lot to with the media, and other politicians, referring to Obama as articulate and good-looking. People have this strange fascination with his family, as evidenced by the continual stories of the different ancestors in his familial line, particularily his maternal side. Being "good-looking", or having a former slave owner or Irish descendant has nothing to do with the issues. Why are his ancestors any more important than Edward's or Clinton's, or even Romney's and Paul's?

BTW, that over-emphasis of his middle name that you continually use is pathetic and pretty ridiculous.

 

I agree tiny. :wavey:

Sorry about my mini rant, I just get so tired of kindergarten politics. I mean if people don't like Obama there are certainly more substantial things to take issue with, like his voting recods, etc. All this nonsense about his familial background and the continual over-emphasing of his middle name is pointless and ridiculous in my book. I guess some people never really grow up.

 

What do you mean, "sarcastic"? That Barack Hussein Obama was being insincere, that he really thinks John Edwards isn't pretty?

I thought he was trying to hit on John Edwards, then I thought it was probably more political posturing. He make the remarks twice, that's no accdient.

Barack Hussein Obama's family, that is. Well, his two books he wrote that went on and on about his ancestors might have something to do with it, ya know.

Okay, I wasn't going to say anything before, but I think the same about your red font.

Chin up, it's not as if anyone made a get 'em video so hate-filled and controversial that it had to be pulled, now is it?

It's all self-inflicted. The bad comes with the good:

He's going nowhere fast, cute or not.

I guess some people never stop being hypocrites.

 

Right.... So I guess GW was hitting on Obama when he called him an attractive guy.

If you say so....Although his books dealt with his experiences as a black man and coming to terms with his "mixed race" identity. They certainly weren't comprehensive genealogies. Even if they were, his ancestors matter as much as the price of tea in China in a presidential race. While some might find it interesting to dig into his famlial background it really has nothing to do with whether, or not, he would make a good president. I prefer to look at the issues and the voting records of candidates, everything else is hyperbole meant to distract the masses from what really matters. The media has turned it into a modern day art form, not to mention campaign managers and politicians.

Sorry, I like the color red. You don't have to read my posts. I do wonder why it is childish? I could understand hard to read..... I guess you'll have to put up with it, like I put up with your exaggerated Hussein.

Sorry, don't know what you are referencing here. Care to elaborate?

Why exactly are you calling me a hypocrite? Do have any evidence of such behavior? If you do I will be happy to admit to my mistake. Just because some people like to make a big deal out of non-issues affecting the "other side", there are others who like to focus on the real issues. I am of the latter. I find the kindergarten politics, used by both sides, rather annoying and pointless. I certainly do not support such tactics regardless of who uses them.

 

Barrack Obama should be proud of his middle name. America has had few friends in the troubled Middle East like His Majesty, the late King Hussein of Jordan.

 

I agree. It's crazy to make his name an issue.

But John Edwards might be the best looking man I have ever seen.

 

So you do think he's pretty, "Bro. Curtis"?

GW was hitting on Obama. You like to roll your eyes, Edwards likes to brush his hair.

No, not if I say so, he's written the books whether I say so or not. I don't really care, but you're right here - dirty campaigning and media distortions are nothing new, but it's worse now because there's so much of it.

You can pat yourself on the back for voting on issues all you want, that just tells me you're not a "swing voter".

That's not John Edwards best color, though. I never asked you to stop, but you brought up what irritated you - Hussein Hussein Hussein - and you never had to read that, either.

I think it's the symbolism of the color red itself - it does signify danger, stop, but it is the color of firetrucks, so it's cool. The font is the kicker. It's too cramped.

I'd like to see some of your earlier work.

Because you think it's mean when Barack Hussein Obama's background is even mentioned, except when he does it himself, which he does all the time.

He's his own worst enemy - instead of taking MP's approach, he keeps coming up with different story about his name. Like typing in red, it draws attention.

Then I think you're going to continue to find politics annoying and pointless.

 

You're very amusing 777. By earlier work are you referring to the mock campaign add mentioned in my biography on the film's website? :laugh: Do you know the meaning of the word satire? What about voluntary? Yes, it was called "Bushwhacker", but I am 100% sure you have absolutely no clue as to why. It was written for a class on politics and the mass media, an exercise in modern day campaign tactics, if you will. The whole point was to take random news bites, distort them, and then frame them a certain way. It purposely played into predispositions and stereotypes, party identification, certain core values, and most importantly elite cues. In other words it was mocking the effectiveness, not to mention the truthfulness of the modern day attack ad. It was not meant to be serious. :laugh: Next time you should probably look into your accusations before spouting off on a public board. I would have gladly explained the "ad" in detail via pm. If you like I will even outline the entire thing. How we purposely manipulated colors and lighting, or our use of an exorbiently high energy bill, to even strategically placed children. I have nothing to hide.

Also, ifilm did not pull the ad off its site because it was controversial or hate-filled. We asked to have it removed after 9/11 because at the time it seemed almost sacrilegist to make fun of our political leaders when our country was experiencing something so tragic. It seemed so meaningless at the time considering the pain the whole country was experiencing.

Oh, before I forget, why do you think I find politics annoying and pointless? I find your observation quite strange considering I studied politics and political behavior for almost five years and am still paying quite dearly for it, (student loans). That's not even counting the years I will spend in grad school. Now if you meant I find your brand of politics annoying and pointless, then you are spot on. I have better things to do with my time.

 

Do you even know what you are talking about here, because I sure don't? I never denied he wrote the books. I pointed out they were not comprehensive genealogies. Do you agree with that assesment or not? Have you even read the books?

Hmmmmmm....You have ascertained I am not a swing voter. Are you sure about that? Being that you have absolutely no clue as to what issues are important to me, that is. If anything I am the epitome of a swing voter. I do not vote along party lines, nor even identify with either of the parties. *Gasp* In fact there have been times that I have voted across party lines.

It also symbolizes the color of love and, more importantly, the blood of Jesus. It's all in how we look at it, I guess.

Because I think it mean? I think you have grossly misunderstood me then sir. If anything I find it pointless and a waste of time. I have only ever said it is a non-issue and I feel we should focus on the issues. These things have no bearing on the ability, or inability, of Obama to run the country. His views, plans, and voting records certainly do, though. This is what we should be focussing on for all candidates, regardless of their party lines.

Again, where is the evidence I am a hypocrite?

 

Easy. You call your little hit job "satire" then turn around and cry when someone you like gets attacked at all.

I'd ask you what you'd think if I made THAT "film" about Clinton, but you'd just go into deeper denial.

 

So again you don't actually have evidence of my hypocrisy, only conjecture. You should quit while you are ahead, btw, because you are only making a bigger fool out of yourself.There were actually a series of satirical ads written. Yes, the first one was of Bush, but the second one was about Jesse Jackson, and the third urban sprawl. Don't know how much farther apart Bush and Jackson could be, politically speaking. The other two were in the process of being cut and sent off to ifilm when 9/11 occured. We ended up not submitting them for the same reasons we asked for "Bushwhacker" to be removed. Like I said, it was mocking attack ads themselves, not the politicians. They were hardly "hit-jobs", and any semi-educated person would have been able to discern that. It was pretty obvious the content was grossly distorted and manipulated. Being as you have never even seen the actual ad, I find it quite comical you feel knowledgeable enough to argue about it's contents. :laugh:

I hardly think I am crying over these Obama stories. I do think they are pointless and non-issues, but I also thought the same about Bush's alcohol addiction when that "scandal" broke. Besides I have not even made up my mind about Obama, or any other candidate, Republican or Democrat, for that matter. I am still perusing the issues and platforms on all sides. At this point I am not even leaning towards any particular person.

So suffice it to say you are the one living in a world of denial, not I. Hard to believe, I know, but I'm sure you will get used to it.

 

Lol, as if this means one single thing coming from. You'll reject any "evidence" that you could be wrong about anything anytime.

You're smarter, you're better, you're more educated, ...just keep telling yourself that. Gotta reinforce those delusions, ya know.

 

Nope, wrong again. I have apologized on this board before, and I will have no problem doing so again. If you have any evidence by all means present it, and I will apologize. It is rather odd that instead of producing anything to back up your claims you would rather conclude that I will act a certain, or that I think a certain thing.

I absolutely do not feel I am smarter, better, or more educated than others here on the BB. I have learned a lot from a myriad of different posters. Besides there is no room for a superiority complex when one enters a debate. That is a sure fire way to end up eating crow and looking foolish.

At any rate conversing with you is about as pointless as debating Obama's ancestors and Bush's alcoholism. It has taken up enough of my time already. Come back with some actual evidence, and not baseless conjecture, concerning my supposed hypocrisy, and I will very humbly and gladly apologize.

 

I still don't think he's THAT pretty.

I'll just use this thread:

from someone of your intellect, eh?

in your superior judgment, O Tolerant One.

More liberal condescendation...I know the two words "hit piece"!

No, that's what you think we should be focusing on. So preachy.

Maybe next time you should take your own advice. Can a hypocrite? Probably not.

 

Ummm....No....Kind of like beating a dead horse pointless. Has nothing to do with intellect or the lack of it. At this point it is glaringly obvious we will not agree about this. Why waste each other's time?

Well in this case, yes. Not because I imagine myself to be smarter, better, or more educated than you, only because you have never seen the ad. How you feel confident enough to argue about the contents of something you have never seen is beyond me? The very fact I personally wrote and produced the ad lends credence to the idea I am more knowledgeable about this particular subject. From the beginning you have made claims that can not be backed up, except of course by your baseless conjecture.

What are you talking about? If you are referring to the #1 rank on ifilm that was only because it one of the top viewed videos, nothing else.

I am hardly the only one, by far. Yes, I do think Americans should focus on the real issues, but people are free to focus on whatever they want. No skin off my nose.

 

Eventually, this was going to get to page three, but I have to go, so you're going to get your way again.

What am I talking about? You. See, the reasons I think what I think about you are by your attitude towards anybody that you happen to disagree with.

When you make "satires" as you do, you are in NO position to look down your nose at what you term "kindgergarten politics". You were TOLD to pull that and it hasn't passed noticed that you still have no link to it. So you did another trashing Jesse Jackson? That's NOT the one you brag about, and so what? It's still "kindergarten politics", you political genius, you.

And your attitude, you're invariably insulting, patronizing, and arrogant in your posts. Even worse, you're repetitive. Mirror, mirror, on the wall:

You're no different, different beat, same music. This is what you sound like:

That thread was closed. This is what you call an apology:

It doesn't count when YOU "apologize" for making YOUR "baseless accusation".

Here, I'm going to turn one of your lines on you, though you probably don't recognize that, either:

Don't like kindergarten politics? Don't use kindergarten politics!

Preach on! "Absurd", "iota"...now you're William F. Buckley!

And you're the expert on race relations you seem to fancy yourself, just to let you know. Try mixing up your rhetoric and rolling your eyes some more.

Like this:



Repeat after me:

baseless conjecture
no evidence
ignorant

And Barack Hussein Obama's still a lightweight.