although i haven't posted here for a while, i do occasionally manage to make a little time for myself and drop by long enough to see who's ranting about what. most recently it was yesterday morning just before being engulfed for the next 12 hours in the tedious labyrinth of winmerging two infinite groups of barely unique files.
during that ten minutes or so, while enjoying the perfect lunacy that is teabag nation, i noticed someone postulating something about the president as follows:
"...if Obammy is impeached..."
and i've been wondering since what that 'obammy' thing is all about.
here's a link to the discussion in question (visitors be warned: it is a foil hat zone); scroll down to reply#5.
I'll have to go out on a limb and say "obammy" was probbaly a combo of Obama and mommy. It's the only thing that makes sense to me.
You are so brave to leave you winmerging labyrinth and enter the "foil hat zone" to bring us this interesting inquiry.
No Charles, he is just doffing his foil hat to spew more stupidity. Clearly he does not understand multiple syllable words. He seeks to paint all those people participating in a discussion with the smear of his own bias.
It is sad to see someone who once may have been an intelligent being, devolving into just another hate spewing idiot that cast aspersions but never backs them up.
A perfect dupe for the democrat party.
There ya go again, calling freedom loving citizens perverts. You racist.
No, he is just stupid. He does not realize how racist he is, or sounds.
It truly is a shame. He won't even defend his own articles. Not sure why he bothers to take a few minutes of his "busy" life to post such silly articles and not bother to reply to the comments.
It's sad people like him can be so idiotic, ignorant and stupid. In his mind terrorist are just freedom fighters fighting for their rights and beliefs (they are allowed to kill innocent people to reach their goals) but people who happen to be protesting during the time we have a Black President are racist. Kinda interesting how that works.
Busy? Hardly. Empty? Yes.
Not really. They are racist themselves. Overcompensating for their own feelings of racism. The one good thing that Obama has shown us is the racist nature of liberals,
Simple, kb. It's ebonics for Bushitler.
I leave for two days... and look what I miss!!! LOL
Isn't it being a bit of a chicken S**t to post an article commenting on another, without posting a comment there first, yourself? I didn't realize JU had an article reviews section.
but people who happen to be protesting during the time we have a Black President are racist
It's not like Obama is doing so much for blacks:
http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/381594/First_African_American_president_to_Promote_Injustice_in_African_Country
As the victims and survivors of Darfur genocide, we are not surprised by the results of the Sudanese rigged, flawed elections that have been announced earlier this week, to declare a victory for Omar Al-Bashir, as a re-elected president to Sudan. But we are extremely shocked, and terribly dismayed for the support of some International Community members, especially the US, the UN, the African Union, the Arab League, the Muslim world and some European countries.
...
And guess what?
Who has turned a blind eye to the suffering of Africans in Darfur?
-- A man who claims to be in charge of change, democracy and the civil rights movement and inheritor of Dr. King's legacy.
-- A man of the same African descent, and the first African American president of the United States of America.
-- A man called "OBAMA" who promised to do as good as Mr. King did and claimed:" The United States has a moral obligation anytime you see humanitarian catastrophes.
from what you've revealed about yourself over the past several years, a whole lotta stuff seems to make perfect sense to you (at least some of which is purely patent nonsense in my opinion and a subset of that is, in fact, utter nonsense no matter who agrees or disagrees with you--but that's a whole other discussion).
in this case, however, perhaps you're on to something.
kettle meet pot.
prove it or admit you're lying again. since there's no qualification involved it would appear you're asserting i don't understand ANY multiple syllable words.
tea is a race?
can't thank you enough for saving me the trouble of having to express and/or explain my beliefs/opinions especially in regard to matters of considerable complexity such as those you mention.
what's truly astounding is your accuracy. i'm no statistician but it's gotta be damn near impossible to achieve a 100.0000% error rate.
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh daiwa said "bu-shit-ler!"
ohhhhhhhhhh nitro said "s**t!"
other than that, i wasn't posting an article commenting on another; i am asking about a comment made on the thread. as far as posting on the other article, what's the point? its author is, in his own humble estimation, the net's foremost arbiter of fact, perfectly omniscient and--unlike mere popes--absolutely infallible.
thanks to hardworking independent thinking, freely enterprising individuals who refuse to be steamrolled by or knuckle under to those determined to making us all do things "their way", we don' need no steenkeeng reviews section.
considerable complexity
Considerable complexity?
What is complex about terrorism? Is there a justification for attacking children and civilians on purpose?
There is complexity in war and sometimes things are not black and white. But terrorism as a strategy is not a complex issue. It's a war crime, plain and simple.
so...that's your answer to my question about the reason obama was being referred to as "obammy"?
it's becoming curiouser & curiouser.
thanks tho.
actually i'm also interested in your take on a proposition frequently put forward on this very site by a small but vocal number of individuals who insist racism no longer exists in contemporary america, clearly also of the opinion a good offense is the best defense, they respond with statements such as this:
seemingly suggesting racism exists only in the eyes of the beholder.
what i'm wondering is if you agree that's also true of anti-semitism?
civilians are generally the mass that powers political protest. it's not at all unusual for large groups of angry demonstrators to damage property and their opponents or for subgroups within the larger movement to literally go commando.
It was more a reply to the point about black presidents and racism.
My point was that a black president is not above ignoring the plight of Africans, i.e. actually oppressed black people.
actually i'm also interested in your take on a proposition frequently put forward on this very site by a small but vocal number of individuals who insist racism no longer exists in contemporary america,
I think racism exists in contemporary America, especially among certain right-wing whites and certain left-wing blacks.
In general US society is less racist than most others (a black CEO would be unheard of in Germany) and very much less racist than some societies (the Darfur genocide is not something I could image happening in contemporary America).
I am very worried about individuals like Ron and Rand Paul who have ample support among white supremacists (what do Stormfront know about the Pauls that we don't?) and also about President Obama who seems to think that the key to peace is segregation of Arabs and Jews.
I am also worried about the increasing socially accepted racism among the mainstream left, like talks about Hamas being a legitimate government we have to respect etc..
Anybody who claims that racism no longer exists in contemporary America just needs to take a look at the people many left-wing "peace activists" support in the middle-east:
How is support for that not racism?
(I am assuming we agree that the man in the picture is not a philo-semite talking about the medical qualities of Jewish blood donations who later couldn't explain why he was filmed with so many weapons. Talk about gun nuts...)
Yes, not quite the same as firing rockets at schools and hospitals.
The problem is when those "angry demonstrators" decide to be angry at kindergardens and hospitals and start damaging not property but children and women.
If people are upset by police presence and attack them, that's a crime.
But if people are upset by kindergardens and hospitals and attack those, that's terrorism.
Most people (especially on the left) look at what people (claim to) fight for, not what methods they use. They argue that the goal justifies the means. But I think that the means justify the goal.
"Mammy", not "mommy."
I had never heard of the term "Obammy" before.
Tea is a beverage.
Food for thought.
Interesting but since this is just your "opinion" (nothing or real value these days) I guess it doesn't really matter now does it?
How... man of you? to admit this.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
