The horror.... the horror ....

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

  Nobody would be stupid enough to make a movie about a live black person using a white actor. It would be absurd because it defies logic and would make no sense....and you well damn know it.

Barry is no more black than he is white. I believe that you are the one defying logic and making no sense – at all.

It's -3° and I believe your brain is frozen.

Scorpion wrote:

In 2008, the Republican ticket was a train wreck.  Just about any Democrat could have beaten McCain. After he picked Palin, the election was over.  The simple fact of the matter is that the election would have been hard for any Republican to win after the Iraq War fiasco.

Not to mention we were losing 800,000 jobs per month,the auto industry was about to go belly up,and the entire economy was on the verge of total collapse.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

  Nobody would be stupid enough to make a movie about a live black person using a white actor. It would be absurd because it defies logic and would make no sense....and you well damn know it.

Barry is no more black than he is white. I believe that you are the one defying logic and making no sense – at all.

It's -3° and I believe your brain is frozen.

Why is it acceptable to you to have a black actor portray a half-black man, but not acceptable to have a white actor portray a half-white man?

I see your brain is still frozen....or is it the ODS...or both. Where did I say it's not 'acceptable' to have a white actor portray a half-white man?

I said it would stupid, absurd, it would defy logic and would make no sense....to anybody with at least half a brain and is not retarded.
That's because Barry looks like a black man, not a "half black man" or "half a white man."
When characters are cast in a movie the actor resembles the real life character they are playing. Sane people know that.
The fact that his mother is white and father is black is totally irrelevant.

Tell us jack, do you think it would be a good idea to cast a white man to portray Barry in a movie?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

   
Contrary to your uninformed opinion, Barack didn't win the Democratic nomination because he was black.  Your "opinion" totally ignores the history, including  his 2004 convention keynote speech, his campaign, and of all the caucuses and primaries that preceded his nomination.

You are correct. He didn’t win the nomination merely because He was black. He also supposedly gave one good speech – I forgot about that.

You also forgot that the dem ticket was a much better choice than an old senile war monger and a shit for brains bitbull with lipstick.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

Tell us jack, do you think it would be a good idea to cast a white man to portray Barry in a movie?

No, and I already said as much.
Neither do I think it would be a good idea to cast a black actor in the role of James Bond.

Why not Rush?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

   
Contrary to your uninformed opinion, Barack didn't win the Democratic nomination because he was black.  
Your "opinion" totally ignores the history, including  his 2004 convention keynote speech, his campaign,
and of all the caucuses and primaries that preceded his nomination.

You are correct. He didn’t win the nomination merely because He was black.
He also supposedly gave one good speech – I forgot about that.

He gave a lot more than one good speech. Of course, if you had followed the Democratic party's nomination process, you would know that.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

   
The fact that we ended up with a black President was a "cherry on top of the sundae," but the fact that he was "black" sure as hell wasn't the reason that he won the election.

Of course it was, but those (present company included) willfully blinded by His cleanliness, His articulateness,
and His …. dare I say it? …. downright dreaminess, seem to be unable to honestly acknowledge that fact.

I see. So now you're calling your opinion a fact... Look, I understand the reason for your misperceptions...you really don't pay much attention to the political process.  You still haven't seen a single speech by Obama, have you?  

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

   
The "grand coronation" that you seem so obsessed with was because the election of the first black President was an
event of historical significance... it's like what Biden said about the Affordable Care Act... it was a "fucking big deal!"

The “grand coronation” of which I speak is not the election itself;
it was His elevation to demigod after having served a scant two unremarkable years as a junior senator,
and having done nothing else of consequence to qualify Himself for that elevation.

Yeah. Well, according to Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution, he was qualified. A candidate wins an election by persuading voters to vote for him. Obama is a skilled politician who succeeded despite being black.

I really don't get why you believe that being black is an advantage. What are you basing that opinion on?

How is being black an advantage?

Dwight D. Eisenhower was never a senator or even a congressman, had absolutely no political experience and yet he was hoisted upon the shoulders of the republicans, elevated to nationwide status, and paraded around as a serious presidential candidate. Why? because he knew how to kill people and was very good at it.
Turned out to be a great president. By today's GOP/crazy ass tea bagger standards he would be called a flaming liberal democrat.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1967059/posts

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

Dwight D. Eisenhower was never a senator or even a congressman, had absolutely no political experience and yet he was hoisted upon the shoulders of the republicans, elevated to nationwide status, and paraded around as a serious presidential candidate. Why? because he knew how to kill people and was very good at it.

Because he knew how to get things done, and he had quite the impressive track record to show for it, unlike Barry, who managed to vote 'present' a lot of the time, and not much more.

Yes, a great track record of killing the enemy, LOL.

All kinds of people know how to "get things done," doesn't mean they're qualified to be president.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

 

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

   
The "grand coronation" that you seem so obsessed with was because the election of the first black President was an
event of historical significance... it's like what Biden said about the Affordable Care Act... it was a "fucking big deal!"

The “grand coronation” of which I speak is not the election itself;
it was His elevation to demigod after having served a scant two unremarkable years as a junior senator,
and having done nothing else of consequence to qualify Himself for that elevation.

Yeah. Well, according to Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution, he was qualified. A candidate wins an election by persuading voters to vote for him. Obama is a skilled politician who succeeded despite being black.

I really don't get why you believe that being black is an advantage. What are you basing that opinion on?

How is being black an advantage?

I asked you this question earlier, but you gave a non-answer.

happy jack wrote:

     
On the other hand, can you name even one white man who would have been so grandly coronated after having served only 2 years as an unremarkable junior senator?
Even one?

No white man with the record listed below, and only 2 years into his first senate term, would have been hoisted upon the shoulders of the Democrats (or, much more importantly, of the media), elevated to nationwide status, and paraded around as a serious presidential candidate. We both know that, though only one of us will admit it.

I did answer your question. You're just too fixated on the color of Obama's skin to understand what I posted.  Any great politician needs an abundance of charisma, intelligence, and ambition fueled by a giant ego.  If you combine those qualities with the ability to give truly great speeches, you've got a winning candidate.  

There is no question in my mind that a white candidate with the same qualities as Barack's could accomplish the same feat.  The reason that I cannot "name" anyone is because I can't think of any other politician who had those qualities during that election cycle.

And you're simply incorrect when you say the media is what drove Barack's success.  His campaign speeches were awesome, and the people lined up by the thousands to see them.  It was a phenomena seldom seen in today's political environment. The media couldn't just pretend that it wasn't happening.

Of course, you don't understand, for the simple reason that you never even bothered to take 30 minutes or so to check out even one of his speeches.  

The Democrats hadn't had an orator as powerful as Barack since JFK.  If you really want to understand how a junior Senator became the President of the United States, then I suggest you watch those campaign events instead of engaging in your myopic fixation on race.

Scorpion wrote:

I did answer your question. You're just too fixated on the color of Obama's skin to understand what I posted.  Any great politician needs an abundance of charisma, intelligence, and ambition fueled by a giant ego.  If you combine those qualities with the ability to give truly great speeches, you've got a winning candidate.  

There is no question in my mind that a white candidate with the same qualities as Barack's could accomplish the same feat.  The reason that I cannot "name" anyone is because I can't think of any other politician who had those qualities during that election cycle.

And you're simply incorrect when you say the media is what drove Barack's success.  His campaign speeches were awesome, and the people lined up by the thousands to see them.  It was a phenomena seldom seen in today's political environment. The media couldn't just pretend that it wasn't happening.

Of course, you don't understand, for the simple reason that you never even bothered to take 30 minutes or so to check out even one of his speeches.  

The Democrats hadn't had an orator as powerful as Barack since JFK.  If you really want to understand how a junior Senator became the President of the United States, then I suggest you watch those campaign events instead of engaging in your myopic fixation on race.

IMO,the bottom line was that after the catastrophic mess that Dubya had created,people were hungry for something different. As you pointed out earlier,the Dems could have nominated just about anyone and still won. So in reality the choice came down to an energetic inspiring young black man versus a middle aged woman,Hillary whose husband had served previously as Pres.

Barack Obama simply inspired more people to vote for him.

As to the troll's ridiculous question;

whining troll wrote:

On the other hand, can you name even one white man who would have been so grandly coronated after having served only 2 years as an unremarkable junior senator?
Even one?

It's history for crying out loud. Records get broken and they will continue to. If you told the founding fathers that someone in their 70's was running for POTUS they would think you were crazy,because back then life span was about 35 yrs.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

Dwight D. Eisenhower was never a senator or even a congressman, had absolutely no political experience and yet he was hoisted upon the shoulders of the republicans, elevated to nationwide status, and paraded around as a serious presidential candidate. Why? because he knew how to kill people and was very good at it.

Because he knew how to get things done, and he had quite the impressive track record to show for it, unlike Barry, who managed to vote 'present' a lot of the time, and not much more.

Yes, a great track record of killing the enemy, LOL.

Do you find something wrong with that?
Would you prefer it if Normandy had never been invaded, if Europe had never been liberated, and Hitler and the Nazis had never been crushed?
Are you ashamed that America was made to look too good?

No, not at all.
The point that obviously is still sailing over your head is that a great track record of killing the enemy does qualify anybody for being president...well except maybe for far right conservative warmongers.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

   
The point that obviously is still sailing over your head is that a great track record of killing the enemy does qualify anybody for being president...

No, it's not sailing over my head. As a matter of fact, I somewhat agree with you.



Presidents who Served in the Military

• George Washington: Revolutionary War (Continental Army)
• James Monroe: Revolutionary War (Continental Army)
• Andrew Jackson: War of 1812 (Army)
• William Henry Harrison: Indian campaigns (Army)
• John Tyler: War of 1812 (Army)
• Zachary Taylor: War of 1812, Black Hawk War, Second Seminole War, Mexican-American War (Army)
• Franklin Pierce: Mexican War (Army)
• Abraham Lincoln: Black Hawk War (Indian Wars) (Army)
• Andrew Johnson: Civil War (Army)
• Ulysses S. Grant: Mexican War and Civil War (Army)
• Rutherford B. Hayes: Civil War (Army)
• James A. Garfield: Civil War (Army)
• Chester A. Arthur: Civil War (Army)
• Benjamin Harrison: Civil War (Army)
• William McKinley: Civil War (Army)
• Theodore Roosevelt: Spanish American War (Army)
• Harry Truman: World War I (Army)
• Dwight Eisenhower: World War I and World War II (Army)
• John F. Kennedy: World War II (Navy)
• Lyndon B. Johnson: World War II (Navy)
• Richard Nixon: World War II (Navy)
• Gerald Ford: World War II (Navy)
• Jimmy Carter: Cold War era (Navy)
• Ronald Reagan: World War II (Air Force)
• George H.W. Bush: World War II (Navy)
• George W. Bush: Vietnam War era (Air Force Reserve)

That's great, thanks for the list, my favorite is the last one:

Rev. Al Sharpton, Eric Garner family members lay wreaths for fallen officers in Brooklyn

Quote :

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. - - The Rev. Al Sharpton walked arm in arm Monday with Gwen Carr, Eric Garner's mother, and Esaw Garner, Garner's former wife, to the site in Bedford-Stuyvesant where two NYPD officers were killed almost a month ago.

Carrying two wreaths of blue and white flowers, they walked to Tompkins Avenue, near its intersection with Myrtle Avenue.

The wreaths -- to be laid where the officers were fatally shot, execution style -- each bore a blue banner, reading, "Det. Wenjian Liu" and "Officer Rafael Ramos," respectively.
Family of Eric Garner, Rev. Al Sharpton lay wreaths for fallen officers in Brooklyn Rev. Al Shaprton and the family of Eric Garner lay wreaths at the site in Brooklyn where two NYPD detectives were killed last month in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. day.

Rev. Sharpton, Ms. Carr and Ms. Garner were greeted by a group that grew to about 200 people, many of them having waited to hear him and possibly Garner's family members speak.

While they were waiting, members of the group sang hymns and clapped.

Rev. Sharpton offered a few brief remarks, and then he and the two women solemnly placed the wreaths at the memorial.

"Dr. King would have denounced senseless violence and stressed our movement for justice in police reform, a movement that is not anti-police or a hate-of-police movement," a news release from Rev. Sharpton's National Action Network stated.

"It's a damn shame we even have to do this. We need to stay together. Rest in peace to them all. We have no hate for the cops, they shouldn't have died either," said Janina Michaels, who said she is still trying to make sense of the officers' and Garner's deaths.

"As long as there's a struggle, we're supposed to be here; not just because it's Martin Luther King Day. We are supposed to be protesting," said a man from New Jersey Baptist Church, who gave his name as Raymond G.

Said Wes Kennedy of Community of Hope: Citizens Serving the Homeless: "We have to be 'we' people, not 'me' people. We're living in a 'we' generation."

If people have hope, senseless things like the killing of the officers and Garner won't happen, he added.

"[We need] Christian people who will stand for peace and justice in the land. You can't have peace without justice," Kennedy said.

Rev. Sharpton and the Garner family "will continue to call for a federal investigation of his killing and possible civil rights violation" at an 8 p.m. vigil Monday on Little Bay Street near Victory Boulevard in Tompkinsville, where Eric Garner's fatal encounter with the NYPD occurred.

Bless you Reverend Sharpton. Always in the right place at the right time

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Bless you Reverend Sharpton. Always in the right place at the right time

Always in the most self-serving situation at the most opportune time - such as when the 'Reverend' brings along with him a full media entourage in order to make sure that his 'compassion' is played out on the front page.[/b]

You do realize that he as the host of MSNBC's "Politics Nation" tends to draw a crowd because people are interested in what Rev Sharpton has to say. You have a long history of always taking the side of people who murder black youth so I can see how Sharpton's search for the truth might offend you.