Ah. Well, it’s certainly possible. I apparently don’t know as much about Kentucky politics as I thought I did, so I can’t dismiss it offhand, but it seems awfully coincidental to me. Just my gut sense here.
The position calls for a younger man, it is a brutal occupation. There was a time when the position called for a man of age, wisdom and probity. But the pace was much more sedate, and situation less complex. This factor favors Obama and Whatsherface, both of whom have intelligence in abundance and a deep bench of advisors. As for wisdom and probity, they can always call, I’m in the book.
By the time this campaign comes to a close, Obama and/or Whatsherface will be looking haggard and worn. They’ll be keeping McCain alive with methamphetamine and shock paddles.
Learn the difference between an article and an editorial.
As for elitism:
One of those little jokes that are in fact true.
Getting back to the OP: never mind the word “boy”. If it really was a “highly classified national security simulation”, should Congressman Leghorn even be talking about what happened in it?
At least Davis didn’t call Obama “uppity”. (As far as we know.)
If, as suggested earlier, it’s a typo and should be “over” instead of “under” it makes a lot more sense. If not, then I don’t get it.
Never mind.
In the future please refrain from accepting the word of someone you only know from the freaking internet about something that their brother told them.
oh right, because the friendships you’ve made on this board aren’t really real. After all it’s just a message board. We’re all non-real entities and incapable of become friends and acquaintences with another board member.
Good to know.
/scarcasm off
Sounds as if you’re stating a fact, not something that somebody on the Internet claims her brother claims happened.
If you told me that your brother said he saw something that sounds unlikely on the face of it, I wouldn’t start stating it as an unqualified fact.
And in this case I don’t believe it. I think either you made it up, your alleged online friend made it up, or her alleged brother made it up. Why? It’s too similar to stories I’ve heard about other celebrities. Sounds like an urban legend.
ETA: Good sarcasm requires wit. Not your forte.
Hillary Clinton has hardly been living in obscurity. And Lord knows there were plenty of people who were willing to expose her faults. So it seems very unlikely that such a blatant act as her telling people they couldn’t look her in the eyes would not be common knowledge. But it apparently was never heard of before now. So logic would dictate that it’s unlikely to be true. And in such a case, offering nothing but a single third-hand piece of hearsay is not credible proof.
Sounds as if I’m stating a fact? I already gave the background to my story, so take it as stating a fact if you want.
The bottom line is the concept of hillary having a ‘no eye contact’ rule in her office really slays a number of you. And yeah, I wanted to deflect this on her since she’s the one accusing Barack Obama of being an elitist. What balls of her. He is the least elitist person in this campaign.
I don’t know you at all and I’m not sure if wit is your forte, (your character and personality are irrelevant to me), but I do know having to marginalize another poster is in sad, poor form.
Attack the idea, not the person is what I always say.
Edited: And since when do you have to cite your shit in the BBQ pit? This isn’t Great Debates.
So kiss my ass.
Not even a little bit. Sounded as if you were stating an untruth you intended to be taken as fact.
Posters here are largely marginalized by the improbable, poorly-evidenced and grotesquely unlikely things they assert to be true. Folks who point out the flaws and bias inherent in certain posts are mostly held blameless for the effect on posters who are careless with or impoverished of the facts or the process by which facts are separated from idle and malicious rumor.
This saying comes in handiest, of course, for persons who have no ideas. Ideally it’s an admirable principle, but it sours when coming from someone offering a fishy third-hand story attacking a political candidate on completely ad hominem, policy-irrelevant grounds.
If you brought this crap there, Great Debates woudn’t be, either.
Draw an X on the part you want kissed, then, because you look 100% all ass to me.
It sounded a lot more like something you were presenting as absolute fact earlier in this conversation. And, no, the concept of you actually believing that in spite of the gigantic mountains of logical reasons not to believe it, especially second-hand, is what slays us.
You don’t, but if you say bizarre, outrageous shit that doesn’t make a lick of sense, you have to give us a good reason to believe you.
You think the no eye contact rule is incredible? Dennis Kucinich doesn’t allow anyone in his immediate radius (wife excepted) that is taller than him. Several of his diminutive staffers had to be constantly alert for any tall people and push them away. Rudy Giuliani requires his staffers to address him as “His Holiness.” Anyone breaking protocol was immediately waterboarded. And Mitt Romney required that everyone approach him by backing up in his direction, so as not to gaze unrequested upon his countenance.
It’s true. My facebook friend’s pet gerbil spelled it out in his feces.
Or you will be mocked, even in The Pit.
Mock, mock, mock.
The friend’s feces or the gerbil’s feces? Does the gerbil have anything to say about Richard Gere?
I once held an ambiguous pronoun writing competition. I hung the winners for all to see.
To this southern white boy who uses and hears the term “boy” all the time in non-racist contexts, THIS remark struck me as purely a racial slur.
Johnnie, we’re tight, right? So take this as not an attack: Many years ago, a friend of mine told me, with many fine details, the story of an amazing thing that had happened to his uncle once upon a time, how he’d had a package stolen from him, but – hahahaha! – what the thief didn’t know is that there was a dead animal inside it! Heeheehee!
He was completely convinced of the story’s truth – after all, it happened to his uncle, fercrissakes! That’s what he’d heard from another family member, so it must be true.
Many years later I was reading a book about urban legends and there it was – the same story, with many of the same details. Imagine that!
The thing is, the person who told you this story may truly have believed it, but was passing on a story she’d heard from someone else who’d heard it and believed it, who’d heard it… These FOAF (friend of a friend) stories seem plausible because they happened at only two removes, in the telling, but if you actually tracked them back you’d discover that the supposed source always retreats another remove, and rarely comes home to an actual source. Even when it does, most often the truth is that a mundane if slightly quirky event has been magnified in its travels, each retelling burnishing the tale until its connection with the original reality is tenuous at best.
Johnnie, I attacked your less-than-credible statement to my satisfaction, then insulted you; don’t confuse the two. Should have used two separate posts, I guess. (Ironically, I failed to take your slowness into account.) Please accept the insult as a personal attack unrelated to the argument at hand.
It’s a southern thing, it just means a young dude. I use “boy” all the time to refer to people younger than myself. I think the racial use of “boy” is a lot older than anyone alive today. Honestly I’ve heard “colored” (not even in a deragatory way) and “nigger”, but not “boy.”