Obama The Sexist: You Can Put Lipstick On A Pig

page: 17
11
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SectionEight
 


If you have any sort of proof that either of these were intentional, that'd be great. But as I've previously said, our current President has made many mental faux pas that we've all forgiven him for.

What Obama has done can't even really be considered a faux pas since neither of them was really a mistake. One was a face scratch, and the other was just a comment taken out of context.

But hey, we can argue over nonsense all day. I'm just not going to sit back and watch a bunch of people continue to slander him over some partisan garbage.




posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by un4gvn1
 

The reason its front and center is the amount of replies/flags not a bias on the part of ATS... Thats how it works... Just fyi...

[edit on 10-9-2008 by northof8]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by SectionEight
 


If you have any sort of proof that either of these were intentional, that'd be great. But as I've previously said, our current President has made many mental faux pas that we've all forgiven him for.


That is a major stretch.... When was the last time the left forgave him anything?


Originally posted by Sublime620
What Obama has done can't even really be considered a faux pas


I will agree with that... What he did was calculated and a smear on a Palin by calling her a pig.


Originally posted by Sublime620
But hey, we can argue over nonsense all day. I'm just not going to sit back and watch a bunch of people continue to slander him over some partisan garbage.


And I am not going to sit back and watch a bunch of people say its ok for Obama to call American Women pigs and then in the same breath say he would sit down and talk with a terrorist that would kill those same American Women... Not going to happen today or any other day...



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by Battleline
 


I have to be honest... I rarely hear race being brought up by anyone but the conservative side. I'm not trying to be partisan, but the last time I remember race being brought up it was over this:

"Obama wouldn't be in this position if he wasn't black".


That was Hillary Clinton's campaign that brought that up, which by the way, is true. So I think it is incorrect for you to attempt to characterize this as something conservatives brought up.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


Perhaps Hillary did bring it up, but it wasn't her that continued to talk about it. That topic was continued on this board by all of the anti-Obama movement for weeks.

reply to post by northof8
 


Liberals? I was talking about the news media. The only reason Bush's slips got any coverage was due to bloggers and the internet.

And no, we haven't forgiving him for lying, but we don't latch onto his mental slip ups.

[edit on 10-9-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by danj3ris
This reminds me of the Kerry/Bush debate where Kerry mentioned Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter. He didn't say anything negative, he simply mentioned her to further articulate his point.


Great example! Perfect example actually.

Kerry belittled himself by bringing up Cheney's daughter. It was a transparent attempt to make middle American conservatives gasp in horror when they heard the news, and a totally unnecessary reference. People in the real world see through this crap, just like they see through Obama's insulting comments.

It doesn't matter how many people try to defend him, or how Obama himself tries to spin it, it is what it is.

There's a saying that the meaning of your communication is the result it produces. Either Obama was insulting Palin or he is oblivious to the consequences his words were going to have. Either way it reflects poorly on Obama.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


Well then, I'll take that as you know better but you choose to pretend otherwise. I'll just sit back and watch the polls tilt to McCain as Obama makes huge tactical and strategic mistakes. I am waiting for the moment when McCain steps up and knocks this election out of the park. The debates should be the final blow for Obama if he keeps this sexist smear crusade going.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620

If it is such an obvious jab, why didn't he come right out with it? Why not say, "You know Palin won't change anything, you can put lipstick on a pig..."

If he really wanted to take a jab at Palin, and he didn't care if he got caught (since according to you it was an obvious jab), then why not just take a jab at Palin?


This is easy. Obama always wants to come back the next day, and with his willing accomplices in cyberspace, spin the story as if HE is the victim.

He's done this time after time. It's textbook passive aggressive. Drop insulting innuendos and then act indignant and victimized when called on your B.S. "Who me? Why is everybody always picking on me???"

Obama has gotten where he's at in life in large part by playing the role of the victim. That's why he probably found the messages preached at the Trinity Church so appealing. More "I'm a victim" therefore I'm justified doing xyx.

There are a lot of people who can be manipulated into relating to a "victim persona," and who can be convinced that they are being attacked to. Creates a very nice Us. vs. Them marketing foundation.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SectionEight
 


So he's doing it on purpose, knowing that everyone will know he's doing it. Knowing the news media will take it and run with it (like they have on the terrorist fist jab, the infamous face scratch, and everything else), but he still thinks it's a good idea to purposely insert a comment that everyone will freak out about.

You can't list a motive for him to do it, you can't provide proof that he intentionally did it, or that he even did it at all.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620

Perhaps Hillary did bring it up, but it wasn't her that continued to talk about it. That topic was continued on this board by all of the anti-Obama movement for weeks.


Yes, and a huge portion of the "anti-Obama movement" were Democrats who support Hillary Clinton. They were infuriated over how Obama manipulated the race issue during the primaries to stir up support in the black community.

Again, this is just classic textbook marketing. Us. vs. Them marketing. Create a reality that there are two groups: Us. vs. Them. And then portray that THEY are out to get US.

It worked in the primaries because Obama was able to consolidate blacks easily into the Us. vs. Them story line.

Now he's been trumped in the general election by Palin's selection as VP. Obama's plan was to use the Us vs. Them with the "Us" being average Americans and the THEM being rich old white dudes.

Now the McCain/Palin ticket has stolen his thunder. They can use the US vs. Them and make it into women vs. those who want to hold women back. They also have created an Us. vs. Them and made it about true reformers vs. Washington insiders.

The Obama campaign is reeling because they know they've been one-upped and they can do almost nothing at this point to undo what's just happened.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


Right... because Obama gets tons of sympathy.


Source
Here's what you get when you type Obama into ATS search.

Hell, there's been a thread about Obama being the Anti-Christ that has been going for months now. I have never seen anyone have this many character assassination attempts before.

People can't help but to bring up his race, his accent, his lack of lapel, his kids, his lack of pets, his patriotism, his service as a community organizer, his "Anti-Christness", his terrorist fist jabs, his face scratches, and his comments about pigs with lipstick.

It's quite pathetic.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Wow, all this politically correct speech and so on and so forth is getting way out of hand during this election cycle.

Guys, I don't like Obama any more than the rest of you, on his history and on the issues, but I didn't see his comment as a direct attack at Palin/McCain. Of course what makes him look bad is that he took time out to publicly address what he said.

Wow, my head is spinning. Can't we get back to renewable energy, nationalization of health care, securing our borders, amnesty for illegal immigrants, education and the issues - things that matter?



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by SectionEight
 


So he's doing it on purpose, knowing that everyone will know he's doing it. Knowing the news media will take it and run with it (like they have on the terrorist fist jab, the infamous face scratch, and everything else), but he still thinks it's a good idea to purposely insert a comment that everyone will freak out about.

You can't list a motive for him to do it, you can't provide proof that he intentionally did it, or that he even did it at all.


Can you offer any proof that he didn't intentionally do it? Until then we are at a stalemate in your eyes. We all know he was calling Palin a pig but some people are in denial. He is imploding and some people are really going to go over the deep end because of it.

I can see people have invested more than what is safe in this false prophet. He is a wolf in sheeps clothing and I can see people jumping out of windows when he loses this election. This is unhealthy at best.

How can you expect him to win anyway? He is running against the VP as opposed to McCain for goodness sakes.

[edit on 10-9-2008 by northof8]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 

His motive is it worked against Hillary. He is inexperienced though and in way over his head in the general election. He is getting called on this stuff by the opposition. When he battled Hillary there was a line where Hillary would not cross to take him down because it was theorized in DNC headquarters that that would weaken the party too much and be bad in the long run vs the Republicans.
Historically this is Obama's method, he attacks. It is what got him to the Senate by destroying his competition.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by northof8
 


Hmm, proof that he didn't intentionally do it. Sure.

  • He has no reason to do it.
  • There is no proof that he did do it on purpose.
  • He wasn't even talking about her when he made the statement.
  • The media has a previous record of taking things out of context and blowing them out of proportion (and worse... people believing it).


reply to post by SectionEight
 


What worked against Hillary? Can you cite an example?

[edit on 10-9-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by northof8
 


Hmm, proof that he didn't intentionally do it. Sure.

  • He has no reason to do it.
  • There is no proof that he did do it on purpose.
  • He wasn't even talking about her when he made the statement.
  • The media has a previous record of taking things out of context and blowing them out of proportion (and worse... people believing it).




Yet knowing all this he said it anyway. And in spite of his protests that there are important issues to discuss, he drew more attention to this issue today by discussing it some more.

I think this is evidence he planned this whole episode. It created the meme that Palin is now associated with being called a pig, and it reminded everybody how Obama is just a poor victim.

Great strategy as a matter of fact. He had to do SOMETHING to change the momentum, and he went to the most reliable play in his playbook. Being the victim.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


Yes, he said it anyway. He said a phrase that, taken in context, makes perfect sense to say there.

Just like what he said right afterwards, that a fish wrapped in paper that says changes will still stink after 8 years. The difference between the fish statement and the pig statement?

You can't take the fish statement out of context. But believe me, if she had fish lips you'd be all over it.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by northof8
 


Hmm, proof that he didn't intentionally do it. Sure.

  • He has no reason to do it.
  • There is no proof that he did do it on purpose.
  • He wasn't even talking about her when he made the statement.
  • The media has a previous record of taking things out of context and blowing them out of proportion (and worse... people believing it).

[edit on 10-9-2008 by Sublime620]


  • He had every reason to do it. He is very afraid of Palin.
  • There is no proof that he didn't do it on purpose.
  • He was talking about her when made the statement. You can tell by the crowds reaction and his pause that it was intentional and he did mean to call her a pig.
  • The media is in the bag for Obama and has been from day one. Just ask Hillary or watch PMSNBC





top topics
 
11
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join