BW23 wrote:When is Barack Hussein Obama going on vacation?
Please.
Please what? I tried to skim through today's postings...some of which blasted Palin for being in "seclusion" for a week. I saw something about the esteemed colleague from the left going to Hawaii with his family. I assumed this hadn't happened yet and was looking forward to when it might be.
If it's happened, I apologize. I tried to read through those quickly. If it hasn't happened yet, I was curious as to when it would be.
BW23 wrote:When is Barack Hussein Obama going on vacation?
Please.
Please what? I tried to skim through today's postings...some of which blasted Palin for being in "seclusion" for a week. I saw something about the esteemed colleague from the left going to Hawaii with his family. I assumed this hadn't happened yet and was looking forward to when it might be.
If it's happened, I apologize. I tried to read through those quickly. If it hasn't happened yet, I was curious as to when it would be.
I'm not sure what the problem is.
the (intended to be) inflammatory use of Hussein is probably unnecessary. and from what I understand, Obama went on vacation some weeks ago.
I don't understand why it's intended to be inflammatory. Is that not his name? Is it not what he's said about how it would help the world accept the U.S. better as opposed to the current president's name?
I asked a question. You continue to throw out statements about how disgusting McCain and his camp apparently are and dragging Palin through the mud for what she's supposedly done. I'm just asking if it's fine for the other side to do the things you claim the right is doing?
I don't like it from either side. I'm just seeing what you think. But I guess I know your answer.
Is it fine for your side? 'Cause I'm not seeing that
from you at all.
Call your side on it.
Take your time.
If you can do it between now and November 4th,
I'll be impressed.
I don't come on here calling out the liberals on it. If I do, in these many, many pages, please find it.
I just respond to what I think is ridiculous and unnecessary.
If you just want this to be a liberal propaganda BS thread, then I'll bow out gracefully. Because that's where all of the resistance is....when I call someone's BS out.
I've said that I don't like it from either side. I doubt many share my view, at least according to the posts in this thread.
BW23 wrote:I don't understand why it's intended to be inflammatory. Is that not his name? Is it not what he's said about how it would help the world accept the U.S. better as opposed to the current president's name?
i guess it is the context...are you seriously saying that it wasn't intended to incite?
For example, I didn't come on here to talk about the "disgusting" comments made today by Joseph Biden or Barack Hussein Obama in their not-so-veiled references to Palin. So it's not like I'm here trying to go out of my way to bash them.
BW23 wrote:I don't understand why it's intended to be inflammatory. Is that not his name? Is it not what he's said about how it would help the world accept the U.S. better as opposed to the current president's name?
i guess it is the context...are you seriously saying that it wasn't intended to incite?
He's the one that wants to embrace it. He's the one that said it would be good for the U.S. to have someone with that name as president. I think it's idiotic, just like I think the way he went to diffuse rumors this past weekend about his Muslim heritage that hadn't even started was idiotic and backfired. But if he feels that way, then what's the harm in referring to him in that fashion. I don't see it as any different than referring to the current president as Dubya.
BW23 wrote:I don't understand why it's intended to be inflammatory. Is that not his name? Is it not what he's said about how it would help the world accept the U.S. better as opposed to the current president's name?
i guess it is the context...are you seriously saying that it wasn't intended to incite?
He's the one that wants to embrace it. He's the one that said it would be good for the U.S. to have someone with that name as president. I think it's idiotic, just like I think the way he went to diffuse rumors this past weekend about his Muslim heritage that hadn't even started was idiotic and backfired. But if he feels that way, then what's the harm in referring to him in that fashion. I don't see it as any different than referring to the current president as Dubya.
BW23 wrote:I don't understand why it's intended to be inflammatory. Is that not his name? Is it not what he's said about how it would help the world accept the U.S. better as opposed to the current president's name?
It's been his name since Page 1 of this thread, but you just seem to be using it NOW to incite. Nobody here believes you're not trying to stir up trouble with it.
