Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by WilliamK

  1. WilliamK

    Going, going .......

    Three. Here's the proof: GOP convention photo
  2. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. Even you, 2smart.
  3. Right click somewhere in the forum, click "This Frame" then "Show Only This Frame" (or "Open Frame in New Tab", if you prefer). I'm using Seamonkey, but other browsers should have something similar.
  4. WilliamK

    Hoffman Concedes

    Sure it does, because there's more to it than that. Here are two reasons: 1. Scozzafava had name recognition. 2. That district isn't really all that conservative. Its right tilt appears to be driven mostly by fiscal and small-government conservatism. On social issues, it appears centrist, or possibly even a little left of center. On that I agree. If the writing is on the wall, the wall must be covered from floor to ceiling with contradictory and barely legible scribbles.
  5. WilliamK

    Hoffman Concedes

    I stand corrected. Thanks for setting that straight. What position does that favor? I suppose one could attribute the election result to the endorsement rather than to the rising intensity of the far right producing a candidate that moderate R's had trouble supporting. But as the latter effect may very well be the cause of the endorsement and the thing that gave it whatever effectiveness it may have had, it looks to me like both of those explanations support the same conclusion, which is that the increased influence of the far right lost this election for the R's. Do you have a third explanation in mind?
  6. WilliamK


    Liar. Here's the White House staff list as of June 30, 2008: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opini...lary_title.html. Notice that sixteen on this list are readily identifiable as working for the first lady because they have the words "First Lady" in their title. Notice also that there is no duplication of titles among these 16, as would be expected if this were a cumulative list of staffers from different time periods. There are very likely more who worked for Laura Bush than can be readily identified on this list, but it does establish a minimum. According to an Associated Press article that cites the former First Lady's chief of staff as the source, Laura Bush's staff in 2008 numbered between 24 and 26. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/06/...in5365547.shtml
  7. Sorry about the erroneous link. Video is here.
  8. He also briefly rips on the White House near the end. You righties might enjoy that part. The video: For Fox Sake! I have to ask you right wingers something. Are you really so stupid that you can't tell the difference between criticism and censorship? Do you really believe that a handful of critical remarks and a lack of an invite constitutes an "abuse of power" or "a bid to control the press", or that it is comparable to totalitarian countries' state control of media? Do you really believe that a song recognizing the first ever black president during black history month, a song with positive, but rather innocuous lyrics (not even close to painting Obama as some kind of superhero or savior, as the righties would like us to believe), an isolated local event having nothing to do with the president or his administration, constitutes political indoctrination reminiscent of Mao's China or North Korea? Seriously? Are you really that batshit crazy?
  9. WilliamK

    Hoffman Concedes

    http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2009/...house-race.html Hoffman has conceded in NY23. The R's had a moderate and popular incumbent who was a shoo-in. Then nationally prominent Republicans threw their weight behind a far right 3rd party candidate, energizing the wingnut base and effectively pushing the Republican incumbent out of the race. The result? Predominantly Republican NY 23 elected democrat Bill Owens to Congress today.
  10. Ah, yes. Another brilliant 2smart analysis. An already unpopular governor loses an election to an (initially) very popular challenger, and doofus decides that it's a rejection of Barack Obama and Democrats in general. Never mind that the challenger's initially overwhelming lead in the polls dwindled considerably as the election grew nearer. Never mind that poll numbers for the incumbent continued to improve when Obama stumped for him. Never mind that exit polling show Obama with a 57% approval among NJ voters in today's election, despite having elected the Republican candidate. Never mind that exit polls show that the top issues that voters were concerned about were the economy and property taxes. No, 2smart, the clear message is that this race was won on issues of immediate concern to residents of NJ, and on their opinions of the candidates who were actually running in the race. Your claim that it was a referendum on Obama and the national Democratic party is not in evidence, no matter how dear that fantasy is to you.
  11. Title it whatever you want. Bill Clinton's lies and infidelity have no relevance to the subject of this topic, nor to Guest's dishonesty and stupidity getting exposed. Tell me, 2Smart, what compelled you to come to this stupid and dishonest guest's defense? A sense of kinship, perhaps?
  12. Nice cherry picking. Here's the full entry from Merriam-Webster Online: Does everyone see what Guest did? He picked out the obsolete usage, omitted the word "obsolete", and combined it with item c in the third definition, intentionally leaving out the common usage for this context (a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total). You're an idiot and a liar, Guest. 40% is not a majority in the normal usage of the word. And further, the 40% number was referring to the number who describe themselves as conservative, not Republican. The number of self-identified Republicans is not a majority even by your oddball definition. You were wrong, Guest. And you are too gutless to own up to it. What a perfect illustration for a topic titled "The Dishonest Voice of the GOP".
  13. KOTW has had quite a lot of local discussion lately. But there have been times when there would have been no discussion at all if not for the non-local discussion. That might not sound like such a terrible thing, but if discussion dwindles to zero, users soon stop checking for new posts. After that, if someone does post, few will see it, and fewer will respond. Very possibly none at all. Many message boards die that way.
  14. WilliamK

    Mayor upset

    Gutless liar. There's no indication of that outside of your own fantasies.
  15. Sheesh. What I said was nothing special was the nomination date that you were going on about. The date of nomination has no great significance because it's just a nomination, not an award. That's an interesting 3-step debate strategy you've developed there, Guest. 1. Make an unfounded claim. 2. When this is challenged, evade the issue and misrepresent what the other person said. 3. Declare yourself the winner.
  16. As has already been pointed out, there's nothing terribly special about nomination. Someone saw some potential there, and put his name on the list. There's no evidence for your claim that the decision was made in advance, nor does it fit any established pattern. You have no basis for your belief other than your desire to believe it.
  17. It seems premature to me too. I don't think it's doing him any favors politically either, at least not domestically. I suppose it sets a standard and implicitly challenges him to live up to it. Maybe that was the intent. Some have commented that the Nobel prizes have always been for actual accomplishment, not potential accomplishment. That there's no Nobel prize for potential chemistry or potential physics. They make a good point. But perhaps there has been so little accomplishment towards peace lately that just changing the tone and demonstrating at least an intent to work towards peace really does make Obama the best choice. Perhaps it says more about the general state of things than about Barack Obama.
  18. To suggest that they followed the same process that they always follow is ludicrous? Who knew stupidity could be so complete. I suspect you may be a troll, just trying to make Republicans look like morons. But with as much actual stupidity as has been displayed by the right in recent months, it's hard to be sure. It has become a bit like parodying creationists. It's hard to come up with anything dumber than the reality.
  19. As you're so concerned about evidence, you must have some solid evidence for that belief. Right, Guest? Especially as you are making the extraordinary claim that the Nobel Comittee completely abandoned the standard process that they've used for all previous prizes. Surely no one would be stupid enough to claim that without some kind of evidence.
  20. You seem to have confused "racist" with "bigot".
  21. Nice try. But Fox News is not to blame for all of your lies. According to a post from you, Obama's approval rating was "38% and dropping". According to Fox News at the time, it was 53%. You later revised that up to 43%, but Fox's polling was above 50% (and still is, currently 54%). The reason that you don't back up your claims is that you are a habitual liar and an uncritical believer in anything that suits your biases, no matter how suspicious the claim or how untrustworthy the source. I suspect that on those occasions when you do post something that turns out to be true, it is for much the same reason that a stopped clock tells the correct time twice a day. You post them not because they are true (I doubt you ever check), but for the same reason as all of the other things that you post. Because they suit your biases. Like an astrologer or a fortune teller, even when you're right, it's for wrong reasons. And even then it is misused for dishonest and dishonorable purposes.
  22. WilliamK

    ACORN at it again.

    The author of Barack Obama's 2004 convention speech is Barack Obama. And who authored his phenomenal "More Perfect Union" speech? Again, the author was Barack Obama. Even the speeches in which he uses a speech writer are not just handed to him ready-to-read, but are the product of a lot of input to and interaction with the writer. The idea that Barack Obama's phenomenal oratory ability is just reading other people's words from a teleprompter is just one of the ever-growing repertoire of right-wing lies. Not a distortion. Not an understatement. Not an omission. Not an error. But a deliberate, bald faced, LIE. Former Democrat? Good riddance.
  23. WilliamK

    ACORN at it again.

    It's hard to say what the net effect of his race was. For some it was a positive factor, but it also cost him some votes as well. Some appalachian voters were quite explicit about it. In the weeks before the election, you claimed that Obama's poll numbers were driven by white guilt, and that this would translate into a win for McCain/Palin as these guilty whites would vote differently in the privacy of the polling booth than when speaking with a pollster. But that didn't happen. You're now claiming that the "white guilt" voters voted in private the same as they professed in public. You were wrong the first time, and I see no reason to think your reasoning is any better now. As the "white guilt" dip failed to materialize, and as the vote correlated pretty well with a general Democratic shift amongst the electorate (I'm sure you noticed the Democratic gains in Congress and also amongst the state governments), race most likely wasn't a significant factor either way. Like so many other of your claims, this has no substance beyond your emotional desire to believe it. So says the village idiot.
  24. WilliamK

    ACORN at it again.

    2smart is a serial liar, but he's not lying this time. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/us/politics/12acorn.html Just because someone is guilty of some things, doesn't mean they're guilty of everything. BTW, the giant red text is every bit as obnoxious as 2smart's multiple punctuation marks and idiotic "kool-aid" retorts.
  • Create New...