It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
If he can’t even manage Shia, how’s he ever going to figure out LaBeouf?…
I was weirded out today by this story, because the Republicans tried to bring down the hellfire on it, but… You could tell they just didn’t have it in them. They aren’t even adjusted to having McCain as their new sugar daddy yet.
People mess up anecdotes but he has to try to convince those bubbies to vote for him Florida. They are still hesistant of Obama. So he’s trying to connect with a big constituency that has a hate-on against him. I give him dap for trying, but there are better way to connect with the Jewish people.
Also, Heat, Olbermann spent half of his show explaining why Clinton’s statement was so disgusting. He went out of his way to give supporting evidence for Special Comment. If you can ignore half a show’s worth of content backing up that special comment, and still feel it’s a bridge too far. Well sir… you have left me perplexed on that one.
I think Olbermann was spot-on and I think Clintons comments were designed solely to bring up the fact that every great leader professing “change” in America gets shot. She totally planted that seed perfectly and it is disgusting. Plus, if she would just get the fuck out of the race, she wouldn’t have said something like that that plants a seed for the Presidential race. She’s doing all the Republicans dirty work for them while McCain plays nice guy. I seriously think she’s intentionally sabotaging the party.
David,
This isn’t about “mistaking one concentration camp for another” at all. It’s about lying.
Obama was being incredibly transperent when he made this comments. He wasn’t just trying to make himself look good, he was trying to get Jewish people on his side. It was a very obvious moment. It’s not the fact the fact that he got the concentration camps wrong, it’s the fact that he brough the whole thing up in the first place that was stupid.
The fact that his camp (no pun intended) had to change its story more than one time proves that they were looking for an excuse not an explanation. And I wouldn’t be suprised if the whole thing was made up. Let’s not be naive here.
And I not saying this as a Jew but rather as a guy with common sense. I’m not offended and I do think the whole thing was blown out of proportion though at this point the media will take just about anything and will turn this into a major. I do think what he said was a lot more stupid than what Clinton said though.
But Roman… the story is true… right?
Do you get that?
The story is true.
So what is the lie?
As opposed to sniper fire…
And you object to Obama explaining how his family was directly affected by the Holocaust? Is he supposed to be keep it secret?
“Olbermann spent half of his show explaining why Clinton’s statement was so disgusting.”
He has become a pompous bore. To go from Britney jokes and defending war profiteers like his parent company GE while trying to will the outraged spirit of Murrow into his rhetoric has become tiresome.
Joe Biden: RESPOND TO CHRISTIAN!
Senator Biden: “BULLSHIT!”
Christian: you are being a biased ass and everyone knows it. You are a Clinton supporter. A Clinton supporter who still supports her even after she has
– lost
– really lost.
– really fucking lost.
– and made a bat-shit statement last Friday.
Do not hate on the man for dropping the hammer on a woman and the woman’s husband, when they have it coming. The Clinton’s have pretty much destroyed any chance that they would ever have had to stay relevent and effect change on this country/world with their bullshit. They are nothing more than a joke right now except to people like you. Which makes me wonder: what is it about you that is not down with change?
Also… his parent company is NBC/UNIVERSAL, a division of GE, that’s a parent company of the Sheinehardt Wig Company. Seriously… war-profiteering? You are so CLINTON SUPPORTER right now. It’s not even funny.
Oh yeah, I have watched Countdown since it started, and he has always been down with REPORTING ETHICS. Keith has simply had his turn to more serious commentator occur during a time of great political strife and a freakin war. The man rose to the occassion. Fuck you or anyone who gives shit to a man and his program for trying to do more with a news program then most do in this century.
Roman, what are you on about? Obama wasn’t “trying to get Jewish people on his side”, it was concerning the recent G.I. Bill that McCain foolishly didn’t bother to show up to vote on. He was speaking of the problems his Uncle had after the war, and why taking care of Veterans is a personal experience to him.
Getting two concentration camps mixed up is “more stupid” than Hillary’s Bosnia lies? Her “white voters, hard working voters” dog whistling? Her senseless assassination quip, and the ‘apology’ that followed?
IO, you are aware that Bill Clinton is the only 2-term elected Democrat in the past 6 decades in the US?… Has it ever occurred to you why that is?…
Mutiny: did you forget the whole REPUBLICAN RECLAIMING of the CONGRESS during his two terms? Or am I missing something? The Clintons are only about themselves to the ruination of everything around them. While Obama is about the party and has been throughout his entire run.
The Clintons brought about the Bushes and all that entails. Clinton fucked his own vice president for pete’s sake. So yeah… he did good for himself. Too bad he failed this time. No matter how much his wife and himself tried to EDDIE GUERRERO the nomination away from the better candidate.
FUCKED OVER Mr. Gore not FUCKED, but I like the way that works. It seems apt.
Cute wording there mutinyco. It discredits both Truman & Johnson, and nicely ignores that JFK was freakin’ assassinated.
Real cute.
FUCKED OVER Mr. Gore not FUCKED, but I like the way that works. It seems apt.
Well, Mutiny, to answer your question — and, mind you, I voted for Bill Clinton twice — but he did have a little help from Ross Perot both times, right? And if you want to talk, as Hillary does, about the popular vote, well… he never could quite muster a majority, right?
David: Perhaps you would prefer — and, more important, better appreciate — this offering from KO on tonight’s Countdown:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24844889/
Wow. I Double-Posted out of sequence. Balls.
Joe: nice link and states another issue with McCain that will catch up to him at some point. The fact that he wants to be the REFORM candidate with all of those lobbyist, cracks me the hell up.
Admittedly, what Obama said wasn’t an enormous blunder.
But if Bush had said it, you guys would be all over him like:
a) buzzards on a shit wagon
b) a duck on a doodlebug
c) white on rice
d) cold on ice
e) ALL OF THE ABOVE
Circumstances always matter. Would Nixon have gotten elected in ’68 if Johnson hadn’t fucked up in Vietnam?
The fact is, the GOP have had 4 — count ’em 4 — twice-elected presidents in the past 6 decades (though, of course, one resigned during the second term). And the Democrats have only one: Bill Clinton.
You can argue all you want. Stats are stats. He did something no other Democrat has done since FDR.
MutinyCo is also a diehard Hillary supporter so take that with a grain of salt.
I really, really would like for Christian or Jamie to tell me why Hillary is still in this when it’s o-v-e-r. In what way is she helping anyone but herself? I’m not being rude or facetious, I really would like to know.
And don’t give me the standby line that she has the right to finish this. Sure, she totally, totally does. But I also have the right to go to the opening day of DARK KNIGHT at a sold out show and scream FIRE….but it doesn’t make it right.
And IO- that GE comment regarding Olbermann is some crap O’Reilly is trying to get started so Keith will quit picking on him. Ignore that too.
And malone…
Getting on Bush’s case is about as redundant as picking on Uwe Boll. It’s not even worth it any more, no one cares or listens.
Yes, but Malone, that would only be because Bush has established himself as having, at best, only a nodding acquaintanceship with the truth. And now we have yet another member of his inner circle dropping the hammer on him:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24848910/
I’ve never been a die hard Hillary supporter. I’ve made that clear repeatedly. I’m simply not an Obama supporter. Though, if nominated, I’ll vote for him.
Mutiny: I’m not saying he didn’t do it. Your question was: How did he do it? Again, I voted for Clinton twice. And I think the country was much better off during his presidency than it has been under Bush’s regime. But to be brutally honest: I’ve always wondered whether he didn’t really win those elections, but rather — his opponents lost them. I know: Same final effect. Still…
I get you, Joe. Look at it the other way then — if the GOP hadn’t “lost” those elections, then there’d have been no 2-term Democrat…
And I think that’s the Clinton lesson: it’s not about ideals, not about how you do it — it’s simply that you get it done… (for better or worse)
Mutiny: you will at least vote for him. Good on you for that, but Joe has it. Clinton had Ross take all of those Bush votes away as well as 41st Bush’s inability to keep a promise to the base who have a serious problem with taxes. While the second term had a favourable president running up against a good senator. Who just happen to be anything but what was needed during the 90s.
Again: Clinton won twice, but he also ruined the freakin DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR 7 YEARS! The end of Recount has a scene where the person Denis Leary plays runs down a list of things that kept Al Gore out of office besides Florida. Most of those deficiencies stem from Clinton either screwing Al over, or doing things that fucked Al Gore over.
Clinton had a legacy that he decided to shit on by not going the extra-mile with Al Gore. This states more about the man — and his do it for himself attitude — then anything else.
Clinton had perfectly good approval ratings in 2000 during the election; Gore was the one who chose to distance himself. There’s plenty of blame to go around.
IO, that’s the thing I’m disagreeing with you about: Clinton didn’t ruin the Democrats. It’s not his fault they lost in ’00 and ’04. My point is: that’s how the Democrats ALWAYS are. Look at the history of the party over the past 60 years. Bill Clinton was the EXCEPTION.
Mutiny: Clinton did not go the extra mile for Al Gore in 2000. If I remember correctly. Clinton really did not get heavily involved in campaigning for Al until maybe late August or early September. Hell. He did the same thing to Kerry, but Kerry is a horse of a different colour.
Nevertheless; Clinton’s legacy could have been leaving his vice president in office. While it became one of economic highs and other foreign policy woes. The guy hit at the right time. This does not change the fact that Truman took over for the presidency of FDR after only 82 days as vice president. Nor does it change the fact that JFK would have easily won another term. Nor does it change the fact that Bobby Kennedy would have possibly been a two-term president as well. I am looking at the history of the democratic party of the last 60 years Mutiny. Are you?
Yes, I know: The “ends justify the means” argument. That doesn’t make Clinton very different than, say, Karl Rove, does it? But if winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing — then, in my view, Hillary should not have run in the first place. Seriously. I have never thought she could win the general election. Let me repeat: I HAVE NEVER THOUGHT SHE COULD WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION. Mind you, I would vote for her (even now) if she were the Democratic candidate. But I’ve always felt she is too divisive — yes, even more than her husband — and inspires too much full-bore hatred (again, even more than her husband) to win. That’s part of the reason why, at the start of this campaign cycle, I backed Edwards — quite simply, he struck me as the most electable candidate. Obama is, I admit, my second choice. But I truly believe that Obama has a better chance than Clinton against McCain or any other Republican. That is, unless Clinton sabotages him serve her own purposes. Which, I think you’ll agree, is something she’s fully capable of doing if she subscribes to the notion that winning is the only thing.
IO, what are you talking about? How can you honestly say JFK was a shoe-in for a second term or RFK would’ve been? History has already made its judgement: NEITHER OF THEM WERE.
And Clinton didn’t campaign for Gore because, like Jeff said, it was Gore who distanced himself from Clinton. And furthermore, Gore lost the election on his own because he simply never connected personality-wise with the voters (even though he technically won the popular vote). Same thing with Kerry: never connected.
Anyhow, I’m going to sleep, so feel free to continue without me…
OK, if we’re going to talk about popular votes:
John Kerry: 59,028,444
Al Gore: 50,999,897
Bill Clinton (1996): 47,402,357
Bill Clinton (1992): 44,909,326
Of course, Bush got more votes than Kerry. But not as many as you might think or remember: a hair more than 3 million, out of something like 121 million cast.
I think you could make an argument that the last U.S. President who could claim anything like a “mandate” in an election is… Ronald Reagan in 1984. Yikes.
BTW: My source for all this:
http://presidentelect.org/index.html
mutiny, ‘stats are stats’? What is the point you are trying to make here? Because this is a cross-eyed, nearly strawman stat that you are parroting around, and yet you continue to dance around what you mean to imply with it. By ignoring the context and pigeonholing the party into such an odd term for ‘winning’, you ignore reality altogether.
Reagan & Nixon could have keeled over at any moment. Would that have made their Vice-President’s ascent any less important? Of course not.
Furthermore, politics, even in this two party system, are an ever changing and fluid environment. What was true in 1964 was not true in 2004. What was true is 2006 won’t even be true in 2008. The parties of those days are not the parties of today.
Mutiny: you’ve got to fucking be kidding. John and Robert were ASSASINATED. History did not dictate shit. If History were running the show. Bobby would have easily won in 68, but someone killed him. The same goes with his brother. They were killed. You are making a ridiculous argument based on looking at hard numbers — in order to defend a president whose tarnished himself more this year then he ever did with that hummer — instead of knowing anything about the time in which these things occured.
“But Roman… the story is true… right?
Do you get that?
The story is true.
So what is the lie?
As opposed to sniper fire…”
But is it true? If it’s true than fine. As I’ve said before it’s the fact that he brought this up in the first place that I find questionable.
“And you object to Obama explaining how his family was directly affected by the Holocaust? Is he supposed to be keep it secret?”
Give me a break. I don’t want to get into arguing whether or not his family was affected by the Holocaust. That’s not the issue here, it’s why he said what he said. I just don’t think he was very sincere is all.
Will the sniper fire light the funeral pyre?
Poland, I really wish you weren’t so ga-ga over Barry because your objectivity has taken a major hit.
Why did Obama say it? The GI Bill? That was the excuse. Reality is his camp is trying to figure out an angle on how to deal with McCain’s family of military service because the general public are not aware yet as to how many generations it extends to. So if they don’t find a way to morally equate it now, Obama is DOA in any debate regarding the armed forces. It started with that bona fide loser Tom Harkin’s brilliant comment…
http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2344
…and Obama went out there to show he can sympathize. See how it works? Try and float that McCain comes from a family of war mongers and that Obama is from a family of war victims. If Obama was really above the fray he would have put Harkin down. But he said nada.
…because progressives never parse language and twist context and stories to turn their political opponents into “racists”, “homophobes”, “women-haters” and the like.
Nope. Nu-uh. Never happens. They always play clean and safe and deal in the trafficing of ideas.
Fact is, it was and is the left that have been exploiting racial differences for over a generation now. Obama, the more into the campaign we get, comes off not as a sincere politician for change but just as a slick politician who will explit the most florid of language for traction.
That he is getting caught more often is not because the Repubs are desperate…the Dems would have done the same.
I still think he will win the general…but people aren’t stupid…it will be close.
Thankfully McCain is a sincere politician for change. Oh wait. What is one to do if they don’t like either choice Nicol, because McCain is certainly no better than Obama.
Please, David, you’re the one who looks desperate. You’re the one who cannot refrain from a full-on defense of any campaign minutiae that may make Obama look less than messianic.
Obama made an inconsequential mistake. The Republicans have not made a major issue of it, minus a few of the usual suspects. But that doesn’t stop YOU from getting riled up, and making broad generalizations. Talk about Hot Button.
Nicol, I just have to remind you that you aren’t getting into this election. You are a bystander.
Good to see the Right Wing wake up bright and early. They miss out on all the late night fun, but come in nice and later for whatever discussion has occurred all the same.
We have Roman saying he doesn’t care if it is true, Martin S saying that it wasn’t true in that Obama was speaking of the G.I. Bill (watching the speech proves otherwise), Nicol also ignoring if it were true and instead smearing it into oblivion, and mysteryperfecta ignoring that it was the RNC, yes the actual party itself, that led the charge on this bullshit.
Really?
You are all getting your panties in a twist over something that is equal to “forgetting Poland”?
No your not. You all don’t give a shit. You just want to act enraged, and shocked, SHOCKED that David would comment, and that it looks worse the further people try to dig this hole. Even Fox & Friends passed it by, seeing it as non-issue, and they latch onto anything.
This is disingenuous, gentlemen. You simply can’t get up any confidence in your own candidate, and so it is smear smear smear. This is like 2004 in reverse.
“and mysteryperfecta ignoring that it was the RNC, yes the actual party itself, that led the charge on this bullshit.”
I only said the “Republicans” (which is much broader than the RNC) are not making a major issue of it. Mind you, EVERYTHING is made an issue, but this particular slip-up will soon disappear into the ether… just another drop in the slow drip of partisanship. Equating it with legitimate big guns like Rev. Wright and perceived elitism is mischaracterizing it.
Why a story like this has traction HERE is because it is another example of political pandering by Obama, a practice some people have a hard time accepting.
mystery, I agree that Obama panders, just like the other two remaining candidates have (McCain shamelessly courted religious conservatives). He is hardly a perfect candidate. I’m not in denial about him. I don’t think he’s some near-deity disguised as a politician. However, you and the other frequent Obama critics (Nicol) have yet to make a compelling case for another candidate. It is very easy to criticize. I would like to know why I should vote for someone else. If one is unhappy with the nominee of each party, what should they do? Not vote? As flawed as Obama may be, McCain is hardly a decent alternative. Prove me wrong, though. I’ll listen to what you have to say.
Stella’s Boy– good post.
Its nice to see that you have a relatively healthy perspective on Obama. I can make a case for McCain over Obama, but I don’t know how compelling it would be, and its certainly wouldn’t be enthusiastic. I respect McCain; in terms of pandering, I think of several examples of when he DIDN’T say the politically expedient thing, or take the politically expedient position. I agree with some of his positions. I disagree with several others. I think McCain is stronger than Obama on foreign policy matters, and would be more fiscally conservative. I suppose those are the biggies for me.
Its futile to try to “prove you wrong”. I’m an issues guy, you’re probably an issues guy, and I think I can safely assume that we have different political philosphies.
Thank you sir. I agree that our political philosophies are different. I must say that I find it hard to respect McCain these days. I’m sure you can point to examples of him not pandering when he could have, but I believe there are many times when he did pander and I hate the fearmongering that he often participates in. Also, after Bush, isn’t it harder for you to believe that McCain will be fiscally conservative just because he’s a Republican? Foreign policy is very important to me, and since I am not a fan of Bush’s, I’m certainly no fan of McCain’s either. I want this country to move away from his type of foreign policy.
Yes, Obama clearly pandered, because Buchenwald was SUCH a pleasant place.
56,000 dead, 8,483 by gunshot, 1,100 by hanging, 13,500 suffocating or starving in transport.
Do you see how foolish of an argument this is now?
IO, you have again checked your brain at the door. I’ve posted numerous times, here and on HE that I don’t like Clinton and despise a lot of her policies. I’ve already stated I’d be fine with Obama as president — too bad his supporters are such shrill whiners, bad as Clinton.
But because you have the Daily Kos Konspiracy Troll blues, you project that any complaint leveled against KO equals Clinton Love. It’s not so, but you exist in the Andy Sullivan world where allegiance to Obama and hatred of Clinton is required…or else. J’ACCUSE!
“that GE comment regarding Olbermann is some crap O’Reilly is trying to get started so Keith will quit picking on him. Ignore that too.”
Yes, mustn’t interfere with KO’s exposing all those ethical lapses. Like a network owned by a company that produces weapons selling a war to Americans.
IO, GE has one of the worst environmental and nuclear records; google “Hudson River GE” and learn something.
And guess what? GE has reconstruction contracts with Iraq! When did KO get all Murrow about that?
And GE is the one of the LARGEST WEAPONS CONTRACTORS in the world. To hear Olbermann defend his parent company was incredibly revealing. Had he been saying the same things in 2003, he would be as one with Phil Donahue — who was taken off the air because he wasn’t pimping the war.
I think that nutty Kucinich said it best after he was suddenly disinvited from NBC’s debate:
“…the blatant disregard of the public interest in silencing public debate that dissents with the views of NBC, its parent company, GE, and all of the military contractors and their candidate-funding corporate interests. Corporate control of the media is one issue. Corporate media control of the information that is allowed to
reach American citizens is much more dangerous, much more sinister, and much more un-American.”
I don’t recall Olbermann’s outrage.
Back to Kosland with you, IO!
Joe Biden… “BULLSHIT!”
Seriously Christian; your post demonstrates the most BULLSHIT ASPECT OF THIS ENTIRE FUCKING BLOG: THE WAY PEOPLE SUPPOSED THEY KNOW YOU! You know shit about me. All you know is what I post. Yet you make all of these statements — like other people about other things — that are complete and utter horseshit. They are ridiculous. Why on earth would anyone make such broad accusations without knowing shit about a person? This happens way too much on this blog. Nevertheless; all I know is what I gain from your post Christian, and they read like a Clinton Supporter. I also find it funny that you believe that I should know you have posted this shit at HE. Like I give a fuck about Jeffery Wells. Again… stop the bullshit… and reply with what you see not what you think you know. I know that will be hard, but you motherfuckers should try it out.
Tofu – I wasn’t denying the comment came within the context of the GI Bill. I was pointing out that it was the alibi, a poor one, to invoke some family member he never met who went somewhere in Germany during WW2 and came back with problems. It’s not anymore concrete that that, because the recollection he told in ’02 was that this family member knew men who liberated these camps, not that he did it specifically. What Dave implied was that it was a nothing started by the GOP, and I say notso when it comes on the heels of Harkin’s comments. Do I think Barry orchesrated this? No. In fact, I think he’s very uncomfortable doing it, but he’s not “changing the discourse” as he claims he was going to.
Stella – I can’t make an argument for either of the candidates because they are massive variables. Clinton, Reagan, W,- they won re-election because enough people knew what they were getting. Obama’s support is built on a nebulous called change and McCain is running as the anti-Republican, Republican. It’s really a game of how little they can define themselves, thereby being all things to all people.
“…all I know is what I gain from your post Christian, and they read like a Clinton Supporter. I also find it funny that you believe that I should know you have posted this shit at HE. Like I give a fuck about Jeffery Wells. Again… stop the bullshit… and reply with what you see not what you think you know. I know that will be hard, but you motherfuckers should try it out.”
Are you 12 years old? How exactly are you helping Obama unify?
Now, please since you schooled me on being clear, confront your mistakes about GE.
Christian: are you an asshole? You do not have what it takes. Go bother with someone you can stand toe to toe with because you are revealing yourself to be a complete and utter ass.
Oh yeah… NBC/UNIVERSAL and Keith has made statements about GE. Of course a dick like you never stops the facts from stopping you post some stupid shit on a website. I also have no idea who would want someone like you in terms of party unity. Hillary is pretty freakin shaddy. If you do not get this about her. Bugger off. I got no time for buggers.
Christian: are you an asshole? You do not have what it takes. Go bother with someone you can stand toe to toe with because you are revealing yourself to be a complete and utter ass.
Oh yeah… NBC/UNIVERSAL and Keith has made statements about GE. Of course a dick like you never stops the facts from stopping you post some stupid shit on a website. I also have no idea who would want someone like you in terms of party unity. Hillary is pretty freakin shaddy. If you do not get this about her. Bugger off. I got no time for buggers.
Was that post really worth repeating? But I get it, you’re 15.
Bugger off?
IOI, you always talk about how nobody is capable of standing ‘toe-to-toe’ and then you never say why, or what would happen if your terrible wrath was exercised.
Christian… the attack machine certainly got revved up to go after Obama on this and we can still see some of the residual smearing days later. They did back off pretty quickly – after this post, by the way – when they realized how it was about to backfire on them.
They had no argument that Obama’s uncle/great-uncle was not in a concentration camp liberating group… all they had was which camp it was. And instead of waiting 2 hours for clarification, they went on the attack, comparing this minor mistake that still had the truth behind it to the lies others have told.
Roman exposed the talking points early in the comments here – “This isn’t about ‘mistaking one concentration camp for another’ at all. It’s about lying.”
But it wasn’t.
Moreover, the whole “magical negro” argument about Obama’s supporters having blinders on has been conjured up by the opposition, particularly The Clintons. For most of us, that too is bullshit. Of course there are nut jobs for every candidate who see them as a savior… no group bigger than older women for Clinton who feel they have it coming to them because they want to see a woman in office before they die.
I have already agreed that the assassination thing got blown out of proportion.
But my original point remains… you can argue right vs left with Obama and issues… but the petty stuff… which is the only chance McCain has of winning… is pretty thin… and Republicans are desperate.
And is this really pandering?
I’m not saying Obama won’t do it. He’s done it.
But I am interested in knowing that this man grew up in a family with a military history and that he had a great uncle who had this painful connection to the Jewish Holocaust.
It’s not nothing. It’s not talking about guns when you support restrictions. It’s not drinking when you don’t or even bowling when you can’t.
Now would be a good time to talk about the failures of the GOP given McClellan’s new best-seller. Let’s ask McCain how he feels about Bush and the war now. Boy, AM talk radio was apoplectic today! Good times.
“Roman, what are you on about? Obama wasn’t “trying to get Jewish people on his side”, it was concerning the recent G.I. Bill that McCain foolishly didn’t bother to show up to vote on.”
Tofu, you must be pretty naive to think that. I don’t care what the context was, it was pretty obvious that these remarks were promitivated. They always are. Virtue by association. And sometimes they backfire like they did here. If I may correct just one thing it would be to say that it wasn’t just about the Jewish people.
“We have Roman saying he doesn’t care if it is true”
Now you are putting words in my mouth. That is not true.
Call me cinical or whatever but to me it was just an obvious situation when a guy was bringing up a topic that has a certain significance to a certain portion of population (if nothing else). And I did want to know if it was true.
All of our arguments are based on the way were view the whole situation. Some of us are obviously biased. We have Poland trying romantisize the whole thing and I think that’s kind of wrong too. Still, if despite what I said, Obama really was sincere that it is something I can accept if not necessarily respect.
Good to see your point made clearer then, Roman. I don’t think we’ll ever fully understand if this backfired. Remember, it brought loads of attention to Obama’s family history.
And think me naive if you will, but the Obama in the speech did not speak of length about the camp, but instead of his Uncle’s PTSD. Bringing it up within the context did make sense.
“But I am interested in knowing that this man grew up in a family with a military history and that he had a great uncle who had this painful connection to the Jewish Holocaust”.
I too have a great uncle who was supposed to be a priest, went to war and by all family accounts, came back shattered. But no one knows exactly what happened because the vast, vast majority of these guys never speak of it to people who didn’t serve. That’s the whole point behind Burns national WW2 docu archive. So for Obama to know specifics, and then get it wrong, and then have a significantly different account four years earlier does not add up. And as it’s been said, put (R) after his name, and he’d be burned at the media stake. And sorry, Dave, one person doesn’t add up to family military history. I’ve got way more relatives and immediate family who served and I’d never make that claim.
Let’s forget the family story, and someone explain to me how in the hell this guy could get the number of states wrong. When W got skewered for not knowing who Musharraf was in 2000, I said fine. When McCain gets hit for shia/sunni, I agree also. But 57 states?
Maybe it is fatigue from the extended campaign season and 24/7 news cycle. Or maybe he’s just really stupid.
I think everybody knows there are 47 states and to say otherwise is a flub.
Where have you all been? The good stuff has been out there all along …
Pastor John Hagee, whom McCain courted bigtime, said Hitler was “carrying out God’s will” …
Jimmy Carter saying Israel has lots of nukes, a fact that’s been an open secret for many years …
Dunkin’ Donuts, owned by the Bush-connected Carlyle Group, drops Rachael Ray after a crusade from a Fox News demagogue …
A Pittsburgh talk-show host is fired for saying Ted Kennedy should be dead …
Yes, the Republican Party has evolved into a fifth column of theocrats and fascisti who dislike liberty. Ask anyone who supports Ron Paul.
And sorry, Dave, one person doesn’t add up to family military history.
Actually, his Grandfather that raised him is a WWII veteran too. Is this what you mean by not matching up with his story from four years ago? I know there has been some confusion on this.
Tofu – You’re right. The ’02 mention was his grandfather that raised him. The recent mention was an uncle, which was later corrected into a great uncle, which makes more sense. Since he was raised by his grandfather, I could see how he would’ve heard a story about his great uncle pretty easily, then.