Chuck (comment #), you are correct, racism is very much alive in America. Just listen to a couple of Jeremiah Wright's sermons, or maybe listen to Farakhan for a few minutes.
Pot, meet kettle.Comment Posted By lionheart On 14.10.2008 @ 10:00
Last post by me (today): when Michael Reynolds starts agreeing with you, you should perhaps rethink your position. What a laugh- these Bush-haters, who have done EVERYTHING you have condemned in your post with regards to supporting a president you didn't vote for, congratulating you on seeing the light. The hypocrisy is of galactic proportions. lionheart out.Comment Posted By lionheart On 13.10.2008 @ 15:38
Jim said (from comment #19): "last I checked, ACORN didn’t control the Electoral College"
Gee, I suppose you're right- its not literally called the "ACORN Electoral College". On the other hand, if Obama get 1 more vote than McCain in say, Ohio, he gets all 20 of Ohio's electoral votes. And since ACORN has been caught, red-handed, in voter fraud across the nation, one could say that they DO control the electoral college, at least in the swing states. The AG in Ohio (a democrat, of course) sued to prevent simple oversight of the election that would have mitigated said fraud.
I submit that anybody that isn't off-their-rocker pissed off about cheating in something as critical and fundamental TO OUR NATION as one-man-one-vote hasn't really thought through the implications. This entire post pisses me off, as well as all the goddamn stupid comments about "getting over" losing. If our votes don't really count, what's the point in voting?
Maybe we just need to cheat too. As soon as an election goes our way from cheating, we'll get the election oversight that is needed. Until then, everybody be a good boy and support your "elected" president. Rick, you're at the front of the line. Maybe you can get his autograph as reward for you good post.Comment Posted By lionheart On 13.10.2008 @ 14:36
If Obama wins in a landslide, where it is clear that all of the voter fraud did not play into the win, then I'll begrudginly support him (where my conscience allows). But if he wins a nail-biter, through clear fraud, what you are asking is laughable. I could no more support a president that won through cheating than I could support Barry Bonds being elected to the baseball Hall of Fame.
It would be difficult enough to support (and not undermine and sabotage) a man that won legitimately, when one believes that everything Obama believes in is detrimental to the country that you love. Supporting an illegitimate president (defined as one that is elected via voter fraud) is impossible.
Why don't you write Bud Selig a letter of support for Barry Bonds? I'm sure you'll be joining more than a few democrats that feel like Bonds is the legitimate HR king.Comment Posted By lionheart On 13.10.2008 @ 13:39
Excellent post. Our founding fathers went to war with England over the lack of representation. This situation is in NO WAY different. When your vote doesn't really count, you are no longer in a democracy, and tyranny rules.
I'm not advocating a revolution, I am only pointing out the seriousness of voter fraud- nothing is more foundational to our republic than the integrity of our elections. Since the executive branch enforces the law (one which will be unlikely to enforce the law against itself), you no longer have a president, you have a king.
So tell me, Rick... having read your post yesterday and now this one today, if the scenario of your first 3 paragraphs plays out, are you still going to support your elected president, er, king?Comment Posted By lionheart On 14.10.2008 @ 07:28
I suppose I'm in the 9%, because, so far, it hasn't affected me yet. I live in a great house on the water, my wife and I bring in about 250 large per year, we have decent health insurance, we have a good money manager (I highly recommend Raymond James). So bad things could happen could yet happen to me, but right now, I'm a LOT more angry about the wrong people getting blamed than I am about the situation itself.
On an intellectual level, I am outraged at the financial debacle. On a visceral level, I'm kindof non-plussed. Give me your honest answer here: what percentage of this outrage is media-manufactured? An are you just jumping on the bandwagon?Comment Posted By lionheart On 8.10.2008 @ 20:49
Sad, but true. Good post, Rick.
BTW, I know you're not a big Ann Coulter fan, but she linked to your post (about Biden's huge gaffe in the debate) at the American Thinker. Thought you should know.Comment Posted By lionheart On 7.10.2008 @ 07:25
As if we needed another example of the double standard for Bider versus Palin, I would like to point out that nobody is skewering Biden for breaking down into tears last night. Can you imagine if Palin had choked-up? There would be no other discussion about her debate performance OTHER than that she had cried.
I'm not criticising Biden for choking up, although it did seem a bit staged to me (I may have choked up too if my son were at risk). I am only pointing out the double standard.Comment Posted By lionheart On 3.10.2008 @ 12:58
Perhaps Robert (comment #18) should consider voting for Snowball. She has a better chance of winning than Bob Barr.Comment Posted By lionheart On 3.10.2008 @ 12:55
Exceptional post, Rick! And not just because I agree with every word, but you do what I can't do- put into words my feelings about her performance. Yes, she connected! Yes, she's got a lot to learn! But yes, she belongs on the big stage!
I also agree with you that Ifill was extremely fair, and you know I hate to give any credit to libs. Ace thinks that she intentionally omitted questions about reform and energy in order to steer clear of Palin's strengths (and that may be true), but it was fair nonetheless.
As you correctly pointed out, Biden did well, but did you count the lies? Bald-faced, look-straight-into-the-camera, no-attempt-to-hide lying (Rove counted 16, Morris less than that, I wasn't keeping track but screamed LIAR several times at the TV).Comment Posted By lionheart On 3.10.2008 @ 07:54