« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: question for the lurking Obamaite primtives  (Read 1469 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58722
  • Reputation: +3096/-173
question for the lurking Obamaite primtives
« on: August 29, 2008, 02:31:15 PM »
Man, it's really hopping over there on Skins's island this morning and afternoon.

However, I remain perplexed, utterly perplexed, by one certain thing.

For months the Obamaites, and the Obamaite primitives, have insisted "it's in the bag" for their man, Barry "Goldwater" Obama.....even going so far as to insist they don't need the votes of the worthier Democrat candidate for president, to put their man into the White House.

(The numbers disagree, but since when have the Obamaites, and the Obamaite primitives, ever considered numbers important?)

The Obamaites, and the Obamaite primitives, are surer about this, than anybody but God--their man's going to the White House, and it'll be in a landslide of Reaganean proportions.

Okay.

So.....since Barry "Goldwater" Obama's inevitable, what difference does it make who John McCain names as his vice-presidential running mate?

Why are the Obamaites, and the Obamaite primitives, so worried about this choice?
Logged
apres moi, le deluge

Milo Yiannopoulos "It has been obvious since 2016 that Trump carries an anointing of some kind. My American friends, are you so blind to reason, and deaf to Heaven? Can he do all this, and cannot get a crown? This man is your King. Coronate him, and watch every devil shriek, and every demon howl."

Offline GOBUCKS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24186
  • Reputation: +1812/-339
  • All in all, not bad, not bad at all
Re: question for the lurking Obamaite primtives
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2008, 02:43:10 PM »
All the "it's in the bag" talk is more whistling past the graveyard. Stupid as they consistently are, Obamaites still have vague memories of election nights in 2000 and 2004. In both cases, they really believed it was "in the bag" only to have the harsh realities of the adult world slap them in the face. Somewhere deep in the primitive amphibian brain stems they use for reasoning, they realize the majority of people really are different from them, and that causes fear. The reaction of normal people to the Palin announcement only magnified that fear. It called up those vague memories of despair in 2000 and 2004.
Logged

Offline BlueStateSaint

  • Here I come to save the day, because I'm a
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32553
  • Reputation: +1560/-191
  • RIP FDNY Lt. Rich Nappi d. 4/16/12
Re: question for the lurking Obamaite primtives
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2008, 02:45:40 PM »
Coach, I said this in two other threads . . . well, maybe three . . . My wife and I saw Bob Beckel on Fox & Friends this morning, discussing the possibility that Gov. Palin would be named as the VP nominee, and Beckel's body language said to us, If it's Palin, we're ****ed.

They are! :-) :cheersmate: :tongue:
« Last Edit: August 29, 2008, 02:49:47 PM by BlueStateSaint »
Logged
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

"All you have to do is look straight and see the road, and when you see it, don't sit looking at it - walk!" -Ayn Rand
 
"Those that trust God with their safety must yet use proper means for their safety, otherwise they tempt Him, and do not trust Him.  God will provide, but so must we also." - Matthew Henry, Commentary on 2 Chronicles 32, from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible

"These anti-gun fools are more dangerous to liberty than street criminals or foreign spies."--Theodore Haas, Dachau Survivor

Chase her.
Chase her even when she's yours.
That's the only way you'll be assured to never lose her.

Offline Carl

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19747
  • Reputation: +1498/-100
Re: question for the lurking Obamaite primtives
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2008, 04:04:57 PM »
DUmmies are obsessed with symbolism and to them the chance of the first woman Vice President having an (R) pushes them to a new level of insane hysterics.

Logged

Offline USA4ME

  • Evil Capitalist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14776
  • Reputation: +2419/-76
Re: question for the lurking Obamaite primtives
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2008, 04:27:05 PM »
Quote from: franksolich on August 29, 2008, 02:31:15 PM
So.....since Barry "Goldwater" Obama's inevitable,.......

Exactly.  If it was  a foregone conclusion, then their discussions in DUmmieland should strictly be on what they hope he can accomplish in office, who he might appoint to his cabinet, and variations on their visions of a perfect world and BushCo going to The Hague.  Instead, they're still talking about what the Obamassiah has to do in order to win, or beat Diebold, or whatever other kooky things they dream up.  This disposition they display can hardly be viewed as one where they believe the election is "in the bag."

.
Logged
Because third world peasant labor is a good thing.

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58722
  • Reputation: +3096/-173
Re: question for the lurking Obamaite primtives
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2008, 04:38:59 PM »
Quote from: Carl on August 29, 2008, 04:04:57 PM
DUmmies are obsessed with symbolism and to them the chance of the first woman Vice President having an (R) pushes them to a new level of insane hysterics.



The problem with that is that Democrats have very few "firsts."

The first black U.S. Senator was a Republican, during the 1870s.

The first U.S. Senator of Chinese derivation was a Republican.

The first female U.S. Congressman was a Republican, from Montana, and elected even before women had the right to vote.

And so on and on and on.

During the 1960s, there was a time when the U.S. Senate consisted of 97 WASPs, one female, one black, and one of Chinese derivation.

Margaret Chase Smith (R-Maine), Edward Brooke (R-Massachusetts), and Hiram Fong (R-Hawaii).

The first female U.S. Senator, to be honest, was a woman, Rebecca Felton (D-Georgia), in the early 1920s, but that was a one-day appointment, and she was, like, 88 years old.  The first female U.S. Senator elected in her own right was Harriet Caraway (D-Arkansas), some time in the early 1930s, but she wasn't anybody the primitives would like.  The first female governor of a state was Nellie Tayloe Ross (the mid-1920s, I think) (D-Wyoming)--but then and again, here was someone the primitives wouldn't like either.

It doesn't surprise me that the Republicans are going to have the first female vice-president, not at all.

And probably the first black president, sometime.

It's probably not going to happen, but I'd like John McCain to announce that Condaleeza Rice is continuing on as U.S. Secretary of State after January 20, 2009--but I'm guessing she wouldn't be too enthusiastic about doing that.  Dealing with obstructors and destructors can get wearying after a while.
Logged
apres moi, le deluge

Milo Yiannopoulos "It has been obvious since 2016 that Trump carries an anointing of some kind. My American friends, are you so blind to reason, and deaf to Heaven? Can he do all this, and cannot get a crown? This man is your King. Coronate him, and watch every devil shriek, and every demon howl."

Offline Carl

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19747
  • Reputation: +1498/-100
Re: question for the lurking Obamaite primtives
« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2008, 05:01:12 PM »
Quote from: franksolich on August 29, 2008, 04:38:59 PM
Quote from: Carl on August 29, 2008, 04:04:57 PM
DUmmies are obsessed with symbolism and to them the chance of the first woman Vice President having an (R) pushes them to a new level of insane hysterics.



The problem with that is that Democrats have very few "firsts."

The first black U.S. Senator was a Republican, during the 1870s.

The first U.S. Senator of Chinese derivation was a Republican.

The first female U.S. Congressman was a Republican, from Montana, and elected even before women had the right to vote.

And so on and on and on.

During the 1960s, there was a time when the U.S. Senate consisted of 97 WASPs, one female, one black, and one of Chinese derivation.

Margaret Chase Smith (R-Maine), Edward Brooke (R-Massachusetts), and Hiram Fong (R-Hawaii).

The first female U.S. Senator, to be honest, was a woman, Rebecca Felton (D-Georgia), in the early 1920s, but that was a one-day appointment, and she was, like, 88 years old.  The first female U.S. Senator elected in her own right was Harriet Caraway (D-Arkansas), some time in the early 1930s, but she wasn't anybody the primitives would like.  The first female governor of a state was Nellie Tayloe Ross (the mid-1920s, I think) (D-Wyoming)--but then and again, here was someone the primitives wouldn't like either.

It doesn't surprise me that the Republicans are going to have the first female vice-president, not at all.

And probably the first black president, sometime.

It's probably not going to happen, but I'd like John McCain to announce that Condaleeza Rice is continuing on as U.S. Secretary of State after January 20, 2009--but I'm guessing she wouldn't be too enthusiastic about doing that.  Dealing with obstructors and destructors can get wearying after a while.

The only Presidents to be impeached had "D"s after their name,that sort of sticks in their craw too. :-)
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »