BF2S Forums “Unfortunately” ?

@ Flaming_Maniac...

Sarah Palin is going to be very much in the public eye on a daily basis if the Republicans win so she better fucking learn how to operate under pressure pretty quick, especially seen as the last Republican President has presided over a spectacular economic downward spiral and they will be inheriting a poisoned chalice.

We're talking about the position of President potentially, this office should go to the most capable hands in the country. As it stands it could be going to a former beauty queen who was mayor of a tiny town in Alaska (the most economically 'un-American' State of the United States). She also appears to be full of political jargon that she doesn't even appear to understand herself and painfully out of touch with important political issues.

Politics is not all about public speaking but public speaking is a very important indicator when it comes to great political figures. You can even buy recordings of famous political speeches that changed the world like Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech, JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" speech, Abraham Lincoln's "four score and seven years ago" speech or Mandela's "I am the first accused" speech. Even when the speeches are not entirely written by the politicians themselves the leadership with which they are delivered has been profoundly important.

Braddock wrote:

Sarah Palin is going to be very much in the public eye on a daily basis if the Republicans win so she better fucking learn how to operate under pressure pretty quick, especially seen as the last Republican President has presided over a spectacular economic downward spiral and they will be inheriting a poisoned chalice.

We're talking about the position of President potentially, this office should go to the most capable hands in the country. As it stands it could be going to a former beauty queen who was mayor of a tiny town in Alaska (the most economically 'un-American' State of the United States). She also appears to be full of political jargon that she doesn't even appear to understand herself and painfully out of touch with important political issues.

pfffft like anyone is qualified to be President. If anything it means she would be forced to rely on her economic advisers, unlike McCain, Obama, or Biden who are more likely to making bumbling fools of themselves before stopping to ask directions.

Braddock wrote:

Politics is not all about public speaking but public speaking is a very important indicator when it comes to great political figures. You can even buy recordings of famous political speeches that changed the world like Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech, JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" speech, Abraham Lincoln's "four score and seven years ago" speech or Mandela's "I am the first accused" speech. Even when the speeches are not entirely written by the politicians themselves the leadership with which they are delivered has been profoundly important.

Public speaking is a ridiculously poor indicator for a politician. It is a ridiculously good indicator for whether or not someone will be elected. A politician's main job is not to inspire people, though apparently people need their President to be their emotional crutch to face the big bad world. Believe it or not candidates can say one thing and then do another once elected. Shocking, I know.

Braddock wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

And who knows how much worse or better it could have been handled? No, no playing 20/20 hindsight, no playing what-if, we DO NOT KNOW what would have happened had someone else been President. I mean come on, even a hard line anti-Bush nut with half a brain would have to admit that at least half of everything attributed to his fault was either uncontrollable or unpredictable. As I said in another thread it is so freakin obvious he has been made a scapegoat of its ridiculous, to the point not one of us can know what was his fault and what was not. The mere fact that he hasn't been assassinated to me means that either every single person in America has lost their balls or deep down people know it's not all his fault.

Blaming Bush is easier than writing to your Congressmen.

Or that he's been probably the best protected President in the history of American politics.

That has nothing to do with the planes being flown into our buildings by groups of very smart people that don't like us very much.

Also, you discount the ingenuity of the rural American. Actually...I guess the vast majority of gun owners are Bush supporters, and the ones bitching so much are liberals that haven't even thought of touching a gun....I guess if you're going to be someone everyone hates, you best be a Republican.

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

And I wish I didn't have to agree with you, but the fact is Obama is where he is, because he is black which is why Oprah championed him. Or has Oprah ever endorsed and funded other political figures...Nope, just the black one.

Lowing, you often talk about individual responsibility and how one should make the best of their own opportunities... well, Obama made the best of his opportunities and he is now running for the White House, give the man some credit. If what you are saying were true and skin colour was the only prerequisite for the position there would be millions of black Americans fighting him for his position right now but there isn't... in the same way that you are not competing with McCain for his position by dint of your own skin colour.

Obama is a politician, a politician who is black... get over it.

Obama is a black politician who was promoted and exposed by Oprah for no other reason than that. It is the sole purpose for her endosement and coverage.

I have no problem with a persons race in politics but lets call it like it is for once Braddock, if he were white with the same message of "change", he would be nothing more than just another politican who is paying his dues in relative obscurity until he did something note worthy. Obama has ridden a meal ticket with Oprah and although you can deny it and kick and scream all you want about that fact, it still remains so. He is where he is for no other reason than because he is black and Oprah picked him up

So when white Rupert Murdoch continually backs white politicians it is coincidence but when black Oprah Winfrey promotes a black politician it is some sort of conspiracy? It's funny how race only becomes an issue with you when the race in question isn't Caucasian.

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Obama is a black politician who was promoted and exposed by Oprah for no other reason than that. It is the sole purpose for her endosement and coverage.

I have no problem with a persons race in politics but lets call it like it is for once Braddock, if he were white with the same message of "change", he would be nothing more than just another politican who is paying his dues in relative obscurity until he did something note worthy. Obama has ridden a meal ticket with Oprah and although you can deny it and kick and scream all you want about that fact, it still remains so. He is where he is for no other reason than because he is black and Oprah picked him up

So when white Rupert Murdoch continually backs white politicians it is coincidence but when black Oprah Winfrey promotes a black politician it is some sort of conspiracy? It's funny how race only becomes an issue with you when the race in question isn't Caucasian.

First of all, it is painfully clear that you can not deny what I have posted.

I have already addressed this point of your argument, he is a politician who happens to be black. He is not some 'crackhead from the ghetto' who was scooped out of his poverty as part of some affirmative action program. You obviously cannot see past his skin colour, that's your problem, but I personally see him as a politician first and as a black man second.

lowing wrote:

Second, Murdoch does not back white politicians, he backs politicians. He, unlike Oprah, has not gone out of his way to push anyone based on their race as far as I know. If I am wrong and his agenda is racisally motivated, back up your claim.

I see, so the fact that all the politicians Murdoch has backed in the past were the same colour as him was just coincidence... and it's only black people who go out of their way to get people of their own race into power?

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

So when white Rupert Murdoch continually backs white politicians it is coincidence but when black Oprah Winfrey promotes a black politician it is some sort of conspiracy? It's funny how race only becomes an issue with you when the race in question isn't Caucasian.

First of all, it is painfully clear that you can not deny what I have posted.

I have already addressed this point of your argument, he is a politician who happens to be black. He is not some 'crackhead from the ghetto' who was scooped out of his poverty as part of some affirmative action program. You obviously cannot see past his skin colour, that's your problem, but I personally see him as a politician first and as a black man second.

lowing wrote:

Second, Murdoch does not back white politicians, he backs politicians. He, unlike Oprah, has not gone out of his way to push anyone based on their race as far as I know. If I am wrong and his agenda is racisally motivated, back up your claim.

I see, so the fact that all the politicians Murdoch has backed in the past were the same colour as him was just coincidence... and it's only black people who go out of their way to get people of their own race into power?

You can not be serious, you obviously can deny what I have posted, I can see past him being black, my post CLEARLY, OPRAH could not!! It is the sole purpose and reason for his popularity and you know it.

I am left wondering how you can "look past skin color" for the black politican, yet notice the skin color of who Murdoch endorses. Hmmmmmmm still tryin to figure that one out.

lowing wrote:

You can not be serious, you obviously can deny what I have posted, I can see past him being black, my post CLEARLY, OPRAH could not!! It is the sole purpose and reason for his popularity and you know it.

So you reckon Oprah is only backing him because he is black? That if he was a Creationist, gun-toting, conservative war-monger he would still get her full support?

Also... are you claiming that he would not exist as a political entity if it weren't for Oprah!? Jeez, I knew Oprah was kind of influential but I didn't think the US was that shallow.

lowing wrote:

I am left wondering how you can "look past skin color" for the black politican, yet notice the skin color of who Murdoch endorses. Hmmmmmmm still tryin to figure that one out.

I'm applying lowing logic... "Oprah's voting on a purely racial level; I mean come on people, she's black, he's black... do the math! It's just a coincidence that Murdoch has consistently backed white candidates up until now though, race has nothing to do with it".

-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:

Oprah has been doing TV since at least the 80s I'm guessing, and there have been plenty of black politicians in various offices throughout government during that whole period.  It's not like Obama is the first black politician.

I think the fact that she has never come out and supported a white politician in the past somehow proves to lowing that she is voting along purely racial lines... whereas the fact that someone like Murdoch has never backed a politician from an ethnic minority in the past is purely coincidental.

It's double standards as usual. To continually back only white politicians is considered 'normal' but to only back black politicians is considered racially motivated voting.

-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:

Oprah has been doing TV since at least the 80s I'm guessing, and there have been plenty of black politicians in various offices throughout government during that whole period.  It's not like Obama is the first black politician.

Really? How many black politicans decided to throw there hat in the ring for the presidency?