The Four Scariest Words in the English Language—and Some of Them May Not Even Be English

I just received this mass email, with the subject line "Breaking ... Obama 'Swiftboating' Plan Revealed," courtesy of Human Events (all formatting in the original):


Below please find a special message from one of our advertisers, ExposeObama.com. From time to time, we receive opportunities we believe you as a valued customer may want to know about. Please note that the following message does not necessarily reflect the editorial positions of Human Events.


"President Barack Hussein Obama," those have to be the scariest four words in the English language!


I'm no fan of Obama (he can get my vote when he pries a gun from the dead cold hand of Charlton Heston), but I'm not sure that President Barack Hussein Obama is all that much scarier than the other two live options at the moment.

More at Expose Obama.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Naga Sadow||

    I think I'll email this to my mom and get on her good side for once. She's a die hard Republican.

  • Taktix®||

    Oh... My... God...

    Obama had the audacity to have a solemn look on his face... while standing next to Ted Kennedy?!?

    Clearly he must be stopped.

    All joking aside, however, Obama is still a turd sandwich.

  • TallDave||

    I think the 527s of 2008 are going make us wistfully recall those innocent days of 2004, when all we had were Swift Vets and Dan Rather promoting forged Bush Guard memos.

  • ||

    So the republicans think President is a scary word? Funny since most have been silent about Bush's executive power grab, which Obama or Hillary could benefit.

  • Neil||

    This is just starting!

  • ||

    Takix, nothing but turds on the election menu. Sort of like the Monty Python Spam skit.

  • TallDave||

    The scariest thing is that McCain and Obama are both claiming they will run "respectful" campaigns.

    Translation: they smile and wave while their hidden friends plant the knives in their opponents' backs.

    The streets are going to run red with rhetoric.

  • Neil||

    Check this out:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cabl0KSFUqo&eurl=http://exposeobama.com/

    Its 1988 all over again!

  • ||

    I find it interesting how "swiftboating" has entered the language as a phrase meaning, "dishonestly demeaning a person." I find it really revealing that nobody whom I ask about using the phrase actually read anything the Swiftboaters said. Most don't even know what they claimed. The degree of self-censorship is really disturbing.

    Imagine if 22 of 26 surviving officers of a Republican's former unit and his entire 5 person chain of command claimed he had seriously exaggerated and in one case outright lied about events during his 120 days in country. I find it difficult to believe the media would go 40 days in a campaign cycle without reporting on the officers claims. Imagine if the Republican acknowledge that first claim the officers made was true. Do you think the first stories done on the claims would be refutations?

    No other event revealed how fair in the tank the major media was for Kerry. I guess we will see the same thing with Obama.

    "Swiftboating" has come to be a command for, "stuff your fingers in your ears and ignore the imputations of the heathens!"

  • lunchstealer||

    Naw, taktix, he's just a giant douche.

  • Neil||

    Shannon love thank you for saying that. The Swift Boat Vets told the TRUTH about John Flip-flop Kerry and his phone-baloney purple band-aid war record.

  • Bingo||

    This is going to be a long year.

  • ||

    Unless one enjoys this sort of shit, it's probably best just to tune out altogether until Nov. 5. I'm strongly considering it...

  • ||

    """The scariest thing is that McCain and Obama are both claiming they will run "respectful" campaigns."""

    Are you new to the election process? You actually think candidates claiming to do something they are not going to do is scary? It's par for the course.

    They have been very civil to this point, but as the stakes get higher, the nastiness will get worse. Of course, that's politics in America.

  • Guy Montag||

    Imagine if 22 of 26 surviving officers of a Republican's former unit and his entire 5 person chain of command claimed he had seriously exaggerated and in one case outright lied about events during his 120 days in country. I find it difficult to believe the media would go 40 days in a campaign cycle without reporting on the officers claims. Imagine if the Republican acknowledge that first claim the officers made was true. Do you think the first stories done on the claims would be refutations?

    You mean the same people who claimed that GWB did not do his required service, even though his records were released and showed (to anybody who can read a drill record) that he indeed did do his required service?

    The same ones who accused the guy of "jumping line" when they could not understand that all applicants to flight school don't count, only the qualified ones do?

    We had a perfectly good comparison of the effect you write of with two candidates in the same election. One with the issues you brought up and another one with no real issues, but got plenty of flack for it.

  • ||

    Didn't some of the Swiftboat guys receive citations based off Kerry's reports?

  • Tom Walls||

    Darn, they took down the Obama/Osama sign.

    http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=61230

    Sadat, Saddam - hmmm, are they brothers?

  • ||

    Didn't some of the Swiftboat guys receive citations based off Kerry's reports?

    Shh. You're not supposed to mention that.

  • ||

    Here is a pretty thinly veiled race card from the linked "ExposeObama" web site:

    "Obama is a liberal, only slightly more stylish than Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, but equally dedicated to the same causes."

    If only they read it on a video clip, they could add in the required lowered voice when saying Jesse Jacksona and Al Sharpton. At least that is how racists talk in my town.

  • Neil||

    Whats so racist about comparing Obama to Sharpton or Jackson?

    They both have the same far left liberal positions.

  • DannyK||

    It's hilarious that even Human Events uses the term "Swiftboating" correctly, as a high-powered smear campaign.

    And if you look on Counterpunch.Org, there's a nice article making McCain out to be the "Manchurian Candidate", so there are Swift boats for everybody this year.

  • Andy Sullivan||

    You gotta admit, they did a pretty good job exposing him in that second picture from the left.
    Yummy.

  • ||

    After eight years of listening to "President George W. Bush" it is hard to be terrified of Obama. Of course, with each new president I figure they can't possible be worse than the previous one and yet they managed to scrap to new lows. But Bush really set new records for disgusting policies so Obama would have to work hard to be worse.

  • Bingo||

    Neil: Because of all the flaming liberal shitheads they chose two prominent black ones

  • Neil||

    Collaborator? Yeah right where did they find that ina document typed on Microsoft Word LOL?

    Rathergate 08!!!

  • Guy Montag||

    Bingo,

    Um, not trying to back up the one you are criticizing or anything, but when was a racial quota system instituted for listing of Leftist radicals in a short comment? Mentioning Bill Ayers only works on about 1% of the readers who actually know who he is.

  • PC||

    Shannon Love | April 23, 2008, 4:04pm | #

    Didn't really give a damn what they had to say, it wasn't going to change my mind and had nothing to do with policy, but I never made a decision as to whether the claims were true or false.

    Using a premise that they were true, it would not surprise me. The term "swiftboating" seems to have entered the political lexicon due to repetition and not explanation, that usually indicates lies. The funny thing is that this stuff happens all the time, your history book is full of these inferences, religions, etc. Look at the current situation, the biggest repetition is that runaway free market capitialism is the reason for the housing crisis.

  • ||

    """But Bush really set new records for disgusting policies so Obama would have to work hard to be worse."""

    All he needs is his party in control of both houses in Congress. That's how Bush got it done.

  • ||

    Shannon Love,

    For good or ill that is the nature of memes, something which all ideologies, etc. (including libertarians) have.

  • ||

    I'm going to stay ass-faced drunk until November.
    And when I come to and see who's elected, I'm going to stay drunk for the next four years.

  • ||

    TrickyVic,

    Well, whether one believes that the going to war in 2003 with Iraq was a good idea or not, it should be noted that the Democrats controlled the Senate in 2002 when the President was given authority to engage in that war. The majority of Democrats in the Senate supported that authorization.

  • ||

    Wow. Never thought I'd see Ted Kennedy as the token white guy.

  • ||

    The Swiftboaters implied that Kerry was less fit to lead our military than Bush - that was the lie they told.

    The top generals confirmed that Kerry WAS better - along with GOP men like Chuck Hagel.

    Bush had to rummage deep into his sack of military misfits to find Petraeus - whom his commander had called an "ass kissing little chickenshit".

    The Bush minions forget the level of ass-kissing that their brain-dead dauphin requires.

  • Dave W.||

    Obama would do the most to cut back on the wasteful government spending program that is the War On terror. As such, he is clearly the most libertarian of the major candidates.

    Would be nice if Mr. Gillespie could be a bit more positive about the guy.

  • ||

    Calidore, I wasn't talking about the war. But since you mentioned it. Congress just authorized the use of force, they had nothing to do with the planning, or execution, or lack thereof. That falls directly on the Commander in Chief.

  • ||

    """Bush had to rummage deep into his sack of military misfits to find Petraeus - whom his commander had called an "ass kissing little chickenshit"."""

    Anyone that has ever served in the military knows ass kissing is the way to move up.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Re: Swiftboating Kerry--

    Snopes is apparently as in the pocket of the liberals as the rest of the media...dang those libruls.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp

  • ||

    shrike,

    The Swiftboaters implied that Kerry was less fit to lead our military than Bush - that was the lie they told.

    No, the swiftboaters thought that Kerry was morally unfit to be president because of the lies he told in 70's and way he misrepresented himself in his 2003 autobiography. They actually thought that as a military commander he was decent if a bit grandiose. Two of the most senior swiftboaters had defended Kerry in a previous election against republican allegation he committed a war crime in Vietnam.

    Besides, saying whether someone is unfit to command the military is an opinion which cannot be a lie. Lies pertain purely to matters of fact. For example, Kerry claimed repeatedly to have been in Cambodia Christmas of '67 when he wasn't as he later admitted. That's a lie.

  • ||

    Anyone watch the commercial on exposeobama.com? It actually says that Obama voted against expanding the dealth penalty. Nice...

  • ||

    Looks like this will matter a great deal to Neil, Guy Montag, and TallDave.

    I guess that's that, then.

  • ||

    On the whole use of Obama's middle name: If someone had attempted the same thing with George Walker Bush, the same people okaying it for Obama would have gone apeshit in defense of Bush. "Treason" would certainly be brought up, probably by Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter. They'd probably even call someone a treasonous traitor, which I imagine is the worst kind of traitor.
    But back to the point. During the whole trial of John WALKER Lindh, using the same logic as that which makes Obama's middle name of Hussein an issue, George WALKER Bush could have been used to somehow imply that because both Lindh and Bush have the same middle name, and Walker Lindh was engaging in acts that would hurt America's interests, that Walker Bush was really a sleeper agent intent on harming America. All because he shares a middle name with a convicted terrorist.

  • ||

    Shannon Love,

    And why should the Swiftboaters opinion have mattered at all?


    They were military midlings at best. You qualify their opinion as "morally"-based because he lied about his location on Christmas day one year.

    In 2004 Bush had been proven a liar on far graver matters - most notably in a SOTU address which he was forced to retract later.

    Your argument has no merit.

  • ||

    Shocking revelation about a heretofore unrealized connection between George Takei and Adolf Hitler!

    Seemed fitting to mention this in this thread for some reason.

  • ||

    Actually, Kerry described going upriver to Cambodia in his journal entry from December 24, 1968.

    Which makes it pretty unlikely that he was lying when he repeated the story later, though he may have been mistaken about how far up they went.

  • ||

    The Swiftboat affair was a political hit job - and a very effective one.

    I am sure that the SwiftLiars felt they had a "moral" obligation to do so. Dig a little deeper and you will find that they were aborto-freaks who felt they were doing the Nazi Popes dirty work.

    Good for them - they won that round.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Obama had the audacity to have a solemn look on his face... while standing next to Ted Kennedy?!?

    My favorite photo of Baraknakov standing next to Kennedy with a solemn look on his face.........

  • ||

    Nick, speaking of guns, what kind do you have?
    Now there is a subject for a future "Reason" article, "The Guns of Reason".
    What do you think.?

    BTW: Me, two 12 guage Mossberg(500) shotguns, M1A Springfield, 3 glocks, 2 tarus, one sig saur P229 and one HK UPS(.40 cal)

  • ||

    The Swiftboat affair was a political hit job - and a very effective one.

    The Swift Boat attack was wholly implausible, and most people realized it was b.s.

    But since Kerry didn't hit back, it created the impression that he couldn't stand up for himself, and that - as opposed to the accusations themselves - is what wounded Kerry.

    It's highly unlikely Obama would make the same mistake. He's pretty much written the book on how to counterpunch throughout this campaign.

  • Mike Laursen||

    OK, I don't get why they included a photo of Obama looking kinda hunky in his swim trunks. Isn't that going to get him more votes?

  • ||

    Mike L,

    He wants your women, and your women want him.

  • TallDave||

    The Swift Boat attack was wholly implausible, and most people realized it was b.s.

    LOL Yeah it was b.s. It's not like they were citing the Senate record or anything.

    "I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

    They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

    Gee, I can't see why anyone would be upset by that.

  • ||

    I'm not sure what I think about Kerry's military service. It did seem like he exaggerated it and might've fudged a thing or two; then again, he actually served and likely wasn't the complete fraud that some people tried to make him out to be. It's hard to see the truth through all the spin.

  • Fluffy||

    Although I hated Kerry, my impression of the Swiftboaters was that they were a group of people who had decided that since Kerry had joined the protest movement against the war when his service was up, it meant that he had "betrayed" them and it was OK for them to retroactively damn his in-country service the for political purposes.

    I wasn't going to put much stock in people whose opinions flipped like a switch based on someone making a political statement.

    I don't think the verb "to swiftboat" means to launch a negative personal attack. I think it means to launch a negative personal attack in a disingenuous manner, recharacterizing events after the fact specifically because one is angry about someone's political actions. I think the verb probably should be "to Anita Hill", because she was a swiftboater long before anyone heard of the swiftboaters.

  • TallDave||

    Actually, Kerry described going upriver to Cambodia in his journal entry from December 24, 1968

    Which was physically impossible according to other Swift Vets, as the river was blocked, not to mention that no officer would have been allowed to do so.

    "It was physically, totally, categorically, across-the-board impossible to get into the canal that went to Cambodia with a swift boat," says Gardner. "There were concrete pilings that were put in the water...plus, the Navy kept patrol boats there to make sure nobody went in. When I was on the 44 boat, it was a physical impossibility to take a swift boat into Cambodian waters."

    And retired admiral Roy Hoffman, a leader of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, said "You've got to be kidding," when asked by National Review Online about Kerry's account of entering Cambodia. Kerry's other commanding officers have denied any Cambodian incursion, as well. Hoffman said that after an earlier incident in which some soldiers had unintentionally crossed the Cambodian border, the line was very clearly marked with signs warning not to cross.


    His diary also says he first saw action AFTER he got his first Purple Heart.

  • Mike Laursen||

    He wants your women, and your women want him.

    Ah, I see.

  • TallDave||

    In 2004 Bush had been proven a liar on far graver matters - most notably in a SOTU address which he was forced to retract later.

    No, he wasn't. The SOTU said British intel said Saddam was seeking uranium in Africa. The British still maintain this is accurate. When Valerie Plame sent Joe Wilson to Africa to check on this, his account also bolstered that theory. Then he went on a national tour claiming otherwise, was refuted by the Senate Intel Committee, and then whined when it came out his wife had sent him rather than Dick Cheney as he'd claimed.

  • Fluffy||


    "I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

    They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."


    And all of that was true.

    What was always striking to me about many of the swiftboater statements is they acted as if Kerry personally accused them of war crimes, and therefore it made it OK for them to damn him. When he did no such thing.

    Testifying to the widespread commission of war crimes in Viet Nam in no way accuses particular individual Naval officers of war crimes. If you served honorably, Kerry didn't accuse you and wasn't talking about you. He was talking about the people who didn't serve honorably.

    The concept that the military is this undifferentiated mass, and that accusing one means you accuse all, is precisely what leads to cover ups. You aren't protecting the dignity of the nation or the military when you deny things that are obviously true. You're just making an ass of yourself and insulting my intelligence. And protecting the guilty. The guilty ones are the ones who should be damned, and who should be sought out, rooted out, and cast out.

  • gmatts||

    "Testifying to the widespread commission of war crimes in Viet Nam in no way accuses particular individual Naval officers of war crimes. If you served honorably, Kerry didn't accuse you and wasn't talking about you. He was talking about the people who didn't serve honorably."

    But more to the point, he didn't really "accuse" anyone. All Kerry did was repeat what some veterans had said that they did, or had seen other vets do.

  • TallDave||

    But since Kerry didn't hit back, it created the impression that he couldn't stand up for himself, and that - as opposed to the accusations themselves - is what wounded Kerry.

    LOL Riiiiight. You keep telling yourself that.

    Of course, the truth is Kerry ignored them as long as he could, which was pretty long with the media too busy with more important matters such as promoting fake Bush guard memos to investigate or even mention the Vets' many valid claims. The SBVFT held a press conference in May; no press showed up.

    Then their book went to #1 on the bestseller lists and they had a national TV campaign, and then Kerry had to respond -- but what could he say? His comments and conduct were public record, as was his use of a techncality to get sent home, and the other stuff was his word against theirs. The MSM tried their best to trash them as GOP shills, but the truth was already out, and they couldn't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

  • TallDave||

    f you served honorably, Kerry didn't accuse you and wasn't talking about you. He was talking about the people who didn't serve honorably."

    not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

  • gmatts||

    "No, he wasn't. The SOTU said British intel said Saddam was seeking uranium in Africa"

    It was a very sneeky and shrewd way of dodging any responsibility for presenting false information. What Bush's exact words were, I believe, "The British government has learned.." Which is just a chicken shit way of presenting something as fact, all the while protecting himself from being accused of using bad intel. I'd imagine that when Bush was presented with the British intel that he himself also "learned" of whatever it was that the British gov't had learned. But he didn't say that. Instead, he just did what he so often does - relies on his own cunning to shield him from any responsibility relating to actions he has taken.

  • TallDave||

    And who can forget this horrifying incident?

    http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=1604

  • TallDave||

    It was a very sneeky and shrewd way of dodging any responsibility for presenting false information.

    It wasn't false. All indications are Saddam was in fact seeking uranium in Africa.

  • TallDave||

    http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

  • ||

    Now TallDave wants to pretend that the Swift Boat campaign was about Kerry's testimony to the Senate, and not his military record. Even though he was yammering about Kerry "lying" just upthread.

    Sure it was. That's why they wore those classy purple heart band aids at the convention - to protest his statement to the Foreign Relations Committee.

    That's exactly what all the cable news talk shows were about.

    Sure. Everyone remembers that.

    Keep writing "LOL," ToolDave. It works out so well for you. Really good for your credibility.

    Anyway, thank you so very much for juxtaposing shilling for the Swift Boat liars and shilling for Bush's uranium claim. It really frames the "issues," and who finds them credible, very well.

    Like I said, this is who is going to be moved by the silly-season stories about Obama - people who still think the Swift Boat people are credible.

  • gmatts||

    You mean that all forged documents indicate that Saddam was seeking uranium in Africa.

    But again, it was chickenshit on the part of Bush to phrase it in the way he did. He didn't have the balls to take ownership for this "fact". Which leads me to believe that there was reason enough to believe that the intel on it was shaky. After all, if it was a fact, then it's just the British gov't that would have learned of it, Bush would have had to learn it as well. But he didn't say that.

    Did you ever, as an answer to a parents question about what you learned in school that day, say "Well my teacher learned that Neil Armstrong was the 1st man to set foot on the moon"?

  • ||

    Seeking unprocessed uranium ore.

    Despite having hundreds of tons of unprocessed uranium ore in Iraq already.

    Some people will believe anything.

  • TallDave||

    Now TallDave wants to pretend that the Swift Boat campaign was about Kerry's testimony to the Senate, and not his military record. Even though he was yammering about Kerry "lying" just upthread.

    Both. The whole campaign is seared, seared into my memory. LOL!

    Keep complaining about the LOLs as I destroy your assertions, it's really funny.

  • TallDave||

    Some people will believe anything.

    LOL Like the people at factcheck.org?

  • ||

    Aargh! My powers are useless against ToolDave's repeated typing of the LoL anagram!

    Curses! This is just how he "destroyed my assertion" that Obama's poll numbers would go higher after the race speech than they were before the Wright story broke.

    Remember that, Dave? When you based your entire argument on not knowing when the story broke?

    That was LOL-eriffic!

  • TallDave||

    Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.

    Maybe they just wanted to claim the $10M left to them in a Nigerian bank account.

  • ||

    See?

    He STILL believes it.

    April 2006.

    This, ladies an gentlemen, is who is going to pay attention to the "ObamaExposed" type stories.

    I'm not going to argue with you, Dave. Just letting you show your colors is all the argument I need.

  • TallDave||

    Remember that, Dave? When you based your entire argument on not knowing when the story broke?

    Yes, I remember being especially amused that you seemed to think the story never existed before the ABC video, despite the fact it had been out for weeks before.

  • ||

    Human Events.

    Events. For humans.

  • ||

    Actually, if he'd only believed it up until April 2006, that would be a lot better.

    Sadly, it is over five full years, and he still repeats the story.

  • TallDave||

    He STILL believes it.

    Me and the people at factcheck.org.

    This, ladies an gentlemen, is who is going to pay attention to the "ObamaExposed" type stories

    Yep, rational people.

    I'm not going to argue with you, Dave.

    No, you'll just assert, have your assertion destroyed, make a personal attack, whine about the LOLs, then leave. But it's fun to watch!

  • ||

    you seemed to think the story never existed before the ABC video, despite the fact it had been out for weeks before.

    But only twerps like you knew about it. The public - the ones who can actually make polls move - first heard the story when ABC ran the story. As demonstrated by the dramatic drop in his polling numbers starting the next day.

    And, actually, you weren't so much "amused" when I made that observation, as "immediately stopped posting on the thread, and didn't bring up the point again on all the subsequent threads about the question."

  • ||

    Well, I guess people reading this will have to make up their own minds about the accuracy our out statements, TallDave.

    Oh, and once again, thank you ever so much for letting us know your opinions about the Yellowcake story and the Swift Boat attacks.

    It really helps to establish the pattern.

  • TallDave||

    No, I immediately refuted you by pointing to a half-dozen articles about Wright.

    LOL You and your fantasies.

  • ||

    Mm-hmm.

    And Iraq has been a glorious success, on the American people don't want to abandon, right?

  • TallDave||

    Yep, we've established I'm a rational person who cites sources, you make unsubstantiated assertions and whine about LOLs.

    I think it's pretty clear who to believe.

  • ||

    Yes, yes, me and my fantasies.

    Like when I comment on polls, for example.

    LOL joe your deluded joe your fantasizing joe.

    Yes, that certainly has worked out well. There goes joe, talking about polls again. What a loon!

  • ||

    I think it's pretty clear who to believe.

    I'm sure you do. You're good like that.

  • TallDave||

    Yes, that certainly has worked out well. There goes joe, talking about polls again. What a loon!

    Yep, that's about how it goes. But at least you're funny.

  • TallDave||

    Now, now, joe, don't get upset. It's just a blog discussion board.

    Try not to let my LOLs haunt your dreams.

  • ||

    Remember how hilarious I was when I wrote that Obama was recovering from the Wright issue, and his polls were going to go higher?

    That was awesome!

    As I recall, you had a good laugh about that, too.

    So.

    Uh.

    Seen any polls lately?

  • TallDave||

    Well, I guess people reading this will have to make up their own minds about the accuracy our out statements, TallDave

    Of course, for anyone who can read factcheck.org or the Senate record, it will be pretty obvious. But if you could do that, I wouldn't have nearly as much fun here.

  • ||

    It's pretty clear that's the end of the substance.

    But once again, you have my sincere gratitude, Captain Yellowcake.

  • ||

    He he he...I just can't help it.

    But TallDave, what about untranslated documents from the Iraqi Security Service?

    Don't they prove that the Yellowcake story was true, too?

  • TallDave||

    As I recall, you had a good laugh about that, too.

    As usual, you project your strawman arguments onto me, but can't link any instances because they're all in your head. But I do enjoy your delusions! LOL

  • TallDave||

    It's pretty clear that's the end of the substance.

    Well, let's see, I cited the Senate record and factcheck.org. You cited... nothing.

    I win.

    Then in desperation, you brought up some argument a poll from a month ago, which you seem to regard as some kind of great victory over me despite being wrong on the substance there too. LOL!

  • gmatts||

    talldave,

    can you please explain why Bush wouldn't simply state that he learned that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger, instead of passing the responsibiltiy for the info onto the Brits?
    It's not as if he was writing a scholarly paper and was concerned about proper citation. Methinks it was to evade responsibility.

    Also, can you explain why his own press secretary said this: "Now, we've long acknowledged -- and this is old news, we've said this repeatedly -- that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect."

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030707-5.html

  • TallDave||

    can you please explain why Bush wouldn't simply state that he learned that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger, instead of passing the responsibiltiy for the info onto the Brits?

    The CIA put together what they put together. Apparently they felt that what the Brits had was more solid.

    Later they said they'd rather not have put that in the SOTU, probably because of the well-publicized Niger forgeries, an understandable bowing to perception over reality.

  • ||

    It's already well known that the documents about the yellow cake was fake.


    "On Tuesday, the White House for the first time officially acknowledged that the Niger claim was wrong and suggested it should not have been used in the president's State of the Union speech in January."

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm

  • shrike\'s 4th grade economics ||

    Yes, no one has argued they weren't fake.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Too bad for the Dems that Bill Richardson nor Evan Bayh are in the race now.

  • ||

    TallDave would agrue with God if God told him they were fake.

  • ||

    TallDave | March 22, 2008, 1:11pm | #

    ...The Wright thing isn't going away...Pretty speeches aren't going to cut it.


    But no, seriously, this is someone with his finger on the pulse of America.

    TallDave, do you think the ObamaExposed web site will be bigger, or smaller, than the Habeeb video you spent days flogging?

    Anyone remember what that even was?

  • gmatts||

    Okay. I got it now. At this moment its now the CIA's fault fro putting together what they put together.

    So it would have been more correct for the President, in his own State of the Union, to say "the CIA has learned that the British gov't has learned that Saddam has sought uranium from Africa. I am on the fence as to whether or not I myself have learned this supposed fact. Nevertheless, because others have learned this, it is cause enough to go to war"

  • TallDave||

    TallDave | March 22, 2008, 1:11pm | # ...The Wright thing isn't going away...Pretty speeches aren't going to cut it.

    And we're still hearing about it. Not going away, just as I said.

    http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&q=wright

    A dozen stories just today.

    But seriously, this is a dead story, just like joe told us.

  • ||

    I love it.

    People are going to start accusing me of making you up.

  • TallDave||

    Not even sure what the "Habeeb video" is, joe.

  • Neil||

    And now the NC GOP is running an ad about it LOL.

  • TallDave||

    So, you claimed it's dead, I said it's not going away, I point out there are a dozen stories on it today (including a campaign ad!), and somehow you think you won that round.

    Like I said, delusional. People probably aren't surprised at any imanginary friends you make up.

  • ||

    Not even sure what the "Habeeb video" is, joe. That's funny, because you used to assure us that it was going to destroy Obama's candidacy.


    TallDave | March 22, 2008, 3:17am | #

    Habeeb's video isn't going to appeal to anyone but people who buy Ann Coulter books. (quote from me)

    No one's going to listen to those crazy Swift Vets!

    Boy, you sure were right! That video caught on like wildfire. So much that you don't even remember it anymore.

    No, but seriously, the fact that you can frame the debate as if you weren't predicting that the Wright flap would kill Obama totally proves your point. No way he's recovering from that! A pretty speech won't do it!

  • ||

    I want to hear more about the untranslated documents from the Iraqi archives.

    The ones that prove - prove! - that the uranium story was true.

  • Neil||

    Joe I guess your upset cause your party nomianted a Mike Dukakis-style liberal?

  • TallDave||

    LOL I didn't say it was going to destroy anyone's campaign, where the hell do you get that?

    I just said the Wright story the video was based on wasn't going away -- and it hasn't.

    predicting that the Wright flap would kill Obama

    As usual you beat the hell out of a strawman of your own making.

  • TallDave||

    Neil,

    Nah, joe's upset because the facts always go aganst him. Watch, he'll bring up something unrelated again, and completely ignore factcheck.org.

    It would be sad if it weren't so funny.

  • Neil||

    Well thats just a typical far-left Democrat then. The facts are ALWAYS against them.

  • TallDave||

    LOL At first I thought he was talking about the Iraqi pop star Habib.

    http://www.albawaba.com/en/entertainment/225357

    But he must mean this one:

    http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/03/20/obama_video_takes_off_on_youtube/4818/

    Obama video takes off on YouTube

    WASHINGTON, March 20 (UPI) -- A video montage that calls into question Democratic U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's patriotism is being viewed widely on the Internet.

    The Politico reported Thursday that the video -- created in part by a leading conservative talk radio producer -- splices together clips of Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, making what some have called racially charged statements.

    The video, titled "Is Obama Wright," had received more than 38,000 views on YouTube by Wednesday evening, Politico said.

    The video by Lee Habeeb also features footage of Malcolm X and the 1968 U.S. Olympians who raised their hand in the black power salute.

  • TallDave||

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72B3tUAqpo4

    Wow, up to half a million views now.

    No one's going to listen to those crazy Swift Vets!

  • TallDave||

    I love this comment too:

    My country was liberated by the US and protected from communism. I call that fair treatment. I appreciate the US and find the self hate of many liberals ridiculus and pathetic. Americans should be proud of their republic and continue to help liberty and democracy around the world.

  • ||

    You got me, Neil. Upset. That's exactly how I'm feeling right now. Terribly, terribly upset about the Democrats' chances this fall. All of the desperate efforts by the outmatched Republicans to knock Obama out of the race have skeered me, you see.

    LOL I didn't say it was going to destroy anyone's campaign, where the hell do you get that?

    I just said the Wright story the video was based on wasn't going away


    Uh huh. Yup, that's all you said - the Republicans are going to keep talking about this story. Why, of course.

    Nah, joe's upset because the facts always go aganst him. Ooh, really not a good idea to address that to Neil. He's still a bit sore from the last time he felt certain I didn't know what I was talking about in this race.

    Anyway, good to see I jogged your memory about the Video That Would Change Everything.

    So, basically, this is who still thinks the silliness of the past month has screwed Obama (you know, the guy who is leading in the presidential matchups with McCain): people who were just certain that the race-baiting video is really driving the race, man.

    The same people who said the speech wouldn't help him. The same people who told us Hillary was a lock for the nomination. The same people who still - still! - believe the Yellowcake story, and the bin Laden/Saddam connection.

    Basically, your average Fox News drone.

  • ||

    Quick, TallDave, explain again how Barack Obama's polling numbers are being damaged by stories that nobody has heard of yet.

    You know, like how the Wright story was hurting him (and HIllary, let's not forget) starting in early March, even though the ABC story didn't air until the 14th.

    Must be all those people reading Newsmax and watching racist videos on You Tube.

  • ||

    All three of them "deny the odvious, and promise the impossible". Out of a nation of 300 million, our choices are reduced to a "has been", a "never was", and the "better half" of a bad apple.

  • ||

    Scariest four words in the English language? I thought those were, "I think I'm pregnant."

  • TallDave||

    Uh huh. Yup, that's all you said - the Republicans are going to keep talking about this story. Why, of course.

    Not just Republicans. It's been mentioned here at Reason several times since then, and Obama was asked about it in the debate. Not a dead story as you claimed.

    Of course, I'm just pointing out the obvious here.

    Quick, TallDave, explain again how Barack Obama's polling numbers are being damaged by stories that nobody has heard of yet.

  • TallDave||

    LOL joe, why do you think ABC went to the trouble to dig out those video clips? Hint: they aren't Republican shills. Wright's wackiness was making the media rounds well before that particularly juicy clip came out. I bet you could find at least a hundred media stories before those videos popped up.

    And I think you're just about the only person in the world who thinks the Wright issue helps him.

    Anyways, hopefully you're done embarassing yourself on this tangent.

  • TallDave||

    Scariest four words in the English language? I thought those were, "I think I'm pregnant."

    That's definitely a contender. I would have gone with "The baby is yours."

  • Neil||

    Bottom line is Joe most Americans (read: those beside the Liberal Elite) are beginning to see thru Obama and his phoniness. The American people arent fond of a liberal racist ideologue and as Obama's beloved Rev. Wright might say the "chickens are coming home to roost" LOL!

  • Neil||

    And if you think Bush is a drag, try a Democrat Congress at 22% LOL!

  • Rimfax||

    When the threads get long, I wonder who the most frequent commenters are.

  • ||

    Christ, this shit -- the back-and-forth among TallDave, joe, Neil and whoever -- is absolutely mind-numbing.

    All of you care about the presidency waaaay too much. Seriously, you are the ones who are the problem, ultimately. You're the ones who help empower the role of president into something it was never intended to be, and something that is thus quite dangerous to the principles of freedom.

  • Neil||

    Come on Tom the biggest threat to our American freedoms (besides the Islamofascists) are far-left liberal Democrats and their useful idiot symithizers.

  • GILMORE||

    Neil | April 23, 2008, 10:22pm | #

    ...idiot symithizers.


    My irony meter is overloading

    Please neil, the drool is fucking up your keystrokes.

    Or maybe it's that you type with one hand.

    LOL?

    Really man, just because people think you're a repulsive fool doesnt make them liberal elites. They just are more perceptive and articulate than you are. Thats not 'elite'. Thats fucking "normal"

  • ||

    Oh, and I meant to say: Please stop. At least, TallDave and Neil -- you guys stop. It's part of joe's ideology to want an omnipotent president, so we're not going to be able to get him to stop his proselytizing.

    But you guys... You're supposed to want a weak government. You're not supposed to get so excited about the whole who's-gonna-be-president game, because then you're treating the presidency as if it frikking matters. Stop it. It's antithetical to your conservatism.

  • GILMORE||

    for god's sake - the use of the hateful and smug "LOL" has become the calling card of total morons.

    Yes Dave, you too. I think you might have started it. It's an idiot magnet.

  • GILMORE||

    Neil | April 23, 2008, 4:25pm | #

    Collaborator? Yeah right where did they find that ina document typed on Microsoft Word LOL?


    See what I mean? "LOL" now = "Look! I'm a douche!!"

  • Neil||

    Tom if this were peacetime Id agree with you.

    But in a time of war the President has a lot of extra powers and it sends an ice-cold chill down my spine when I think of what an extreme leftist like Obama would do with these expanded powers.

  • GILMORE||

    TallDave

    Please dont talk about facts without taking a slow walk through Basra and declaring victory

    unlike neil you sometimes have a point, as long as you dont start declaring any insight into military affairs, at which point you sound like a fucking chickenhawk barbie doll

  • ||

    I just had the most genius idea. Obama should concede to Hillary. He's so young, he has plenty of time to run again. He could simply say that this race is dividing the party, and state that he thinks that Hillary should be the Dem nominee against McCain. At worst, he would be a shoo-in in 2016, and if McCain beats Hillary this year, Obama would be in like Flynn in 2012.

  • Neil||

    John David he couldnt do that cause then Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, and Louis Farakkahn would lead massive protests in the streets at Denver and have riots.

    Id love to see that but too bad for us its not going to happen.

  • ||

    President Hillary Rodham-Clinton

    First Bitch Bill Clinton

    President John Sidney McCain

    Vice President Harry C. Blumpkin

    Secretary of Defense: The Terminator

    Secretary of State: The Taco Bell Chihuahua

  • gmatts||

    "Tom if this were peacetime Id agree with you.

    But in a time of war the President has a lot of extra powers and it sends an ice-cold chill down my spine when I think of what an extreme leftist like Obama would do with these expanded powers."

    And what exactly are these "extra powers" that magically appear in wartime? Are they listed somewhere?
    Who decides what these extra powers are? How long does a President get these extra powers during a war that, if we are to believe conventional wisdom, is going to last for generations to some?


    So your spine has never had the same ice-cold chill go down it when thinking about what Bush has done with the extar powers granted to him by himself? If you're comfortable with the way Bush used these powers, then I'd imagine that whoever is elected next year would be mild compared to Bush's exercise of self-granted and imaginary powers.

  • ||

    Neil,

    In war time we should be more vigilent about our liberty, and that includes even greater scrutiny of this nation's political establishment.

  • TallDave||

    Please dont talk about facts without taking a slow walk through Basra and declaring victory

    I guess you missed the news:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/world/middleeast/20iraq.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1208836800&en=e6987c5fedb69ded&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

    Iraqi Army Takes Last Basra Areas From Sadr Force

    Iraqi soldiers took control of the last bastions of the cleric Moktada al-Sadr's militia in Basra on Saturday, and Iran's ambassador to Baghdad strongly endorsed the Iraqi government's monthlong military operation against the fighters.

    Basra's `dark ages' lifting as hard-line grip weakens

    BAGHDAD (AP) - CD shops sell love songs again. Some women emerge from their homes without veils, and alcohol sellers are coming out of hiding in the southern city of Basra - where religious vigilantes have long enforced strict Islamic codes.

    The changes in recent weeks mark a surprising show of government sway

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j13rxjcZPYpxZvdX5wll3pKDu9EgD904EVD00

    unlike neil you sometimes have a point, as long as you dont start declaring any insight into military affairs,

    LOL Yeah, you seem to have a much better grasp of things. Maybe you should take your own advice.

  • TallDave||

    It's an idiot magnet

    Yes, I've noticed it attracts idiots who complain about them.

    Heck, the best part of an LOL is watching them flail with ever-increasing frustration at those three vexing letters, like a dog furiously attacking a laser dot.

    LOL!

  • GILMORE||

    LOL!

    Yes

    the basra operation by the iraqis was almost as effective as the rest of the Iraq operation since 2003

    you win on that one

  • GILMORE||

    Your problem Dave is you have no experience with military affairs at all, and your cheerleading of shittty projects is about as useful as a REAL AMERICAN as armchair analyst political people like Neil, who is a insane loser with tremendous confidence in a one dimensional worldview... as you seem to be, if at least in this one context. in others, i cant pick on you, because at least our basic instincts are the same

    it would be nice from time to time if you'd stop LOL'ing and actually have discussion, but maybe im too much of an idealist

  • ok, this one one is technicall||

    And what exactly are these "extra powers" that magically appear in wartime? Are they listed somewhere?

    Art I Sect 9:
    The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

  • gmatts||

    "ok, this one one is technically in the legislative branch section"

    And thats why it doesn't help in any way to explain what extra powers the President has at his disposal.

  • Fluffy||

    Of course, the truth is Kerry ignored them as long as he could, which was pretty long with the media too busy with more important matters such as promoting fake Bush guard memos to investigate or even mention the Vets' many valid claims.

    One of the most annoying things about TallDave is his steadfast refusal to get even basic facts correct.

    The 60 Minutes story on the Bush guard memos first aired in September of 2004.

    Prior to that airing, the press coverage of Bush's guard memos was limited to one producer at 60 Minutes. No one else covered the story or devoted any resources to it.

    So how, pray tell, was the media "too busy with more important matters such as promoting fake Bush guard memos" to cover the Swiftboat claims, when the Swiftboat claims were first raised months before the Bush guard memos were even a story?

    This sort of thing is a hallmark of TallDave posts.

    Relative to the amount of money the Swiftboat guys deployed in their 527, their claims received a vast amount of press coverage. Actually, I think we can safely say that no 527 group ever has received a return on its investment that remotely approaches theirs. But somehow in TallDave world, even though they got lots of attention, and even though they ended up having a material impact on the outcome of the election, the poor, poor Swiftboat guys were ignored and sidelined by the evil anti-Bush media.

    If the media was evil and anti-Bush, they might spend more time covering anti-Bush stories, like the Yoo memo story, or the ABC story about the White House meeting to authorize torture, or the Secretary of State's repeated public lies about rendition practices, or the Pentagon's practice of seeding media coverage of the Iraq war with pro-war military analysts.

    If the media is so anti-Bush, why does Bill Kristol keep getting better and better jobs, even though everything he has ever written about Bush and the Iraq war - every last word, including and, but and the - ends up being wrong?

  • ||

    If you ignore them they'll go away.

  • TallDave||

    Fluffy,

    Riiiiiiight.

    Mapes and Dan Rather, among many other journalists, had been investigating for several years the story of Bush's alleged failure to fulfill his obligations to the National Guard.[17]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate

    They were deinifitely NOT investigating the Swift Vet claims for several years.

    Relative to the amount of money the Swiftboat guys deployed in their 527, their claims received a vast amount of press coverage.

    Only AFTER they became a campaign issue, and then the coverage of them was negative.

    If the media is so anti-Bush, why does Bill Kristol keep getting better and better jobs,

    Yeah, because one neocon getting a good job proves the whole media bias thing wrong.

  • TallDave||

    Gilmore,

    Your posts make joe's seem almost substantive. All you've done is assert Basra is a failure and make various personal attacks.

    Well, if it was a failure, maybe you can explain why by all reports the Sadrist HQ has been taken and the Iraqi Army controls the city now.

  • TallDave||

    Not to mention the operations to remove Sadrists in Umm Qasr, Kut, Diwaniyah, Najaf, Nasiriyah, Amarah, and Hillah.

  • ||

    Wow, I'm sorry I missed this ass-kicking.

    TallDave must be waking up sore.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Motion to change the drinking rules.

    Section 101(b)(a)(3) is hereby amended to include each time someone posts LOL.

    Second?

  • TallDave||

    LOL 2nd.

    Also, two drinks whenever anyone complains about an LOL.

    Plus, three drinks whenever joe claims someone lost an argument.

  • TallDave||

    TallDave must be waking up sore.

    Yep, my knuckles are sore from beating your ridiculous claims down again.

    Don't worry, it's a labor of love.

  • ||

    Shannon Love (at 4:04), agreed on the "swiftboating" thing. Proper use of the term would be, "Hillary got swiftboated on her claim of dodging bullet on the tarmac". Swiftboating is when one exaggerator does what exaggerators do and gets called out on it by many people who were there at the time.

    McBragg: There! Darkest Africa. Did I ever tell you about the time I was surrounded by a thousand natives armed only with my trusty swiss army knife?

  • ||

    omg stfu bout obama hes proper nice he sorted econmy out n everything!! :)

  • ||

    When will Republicans grow up and acknowledge the legitimacy of democratically elected presidents from the opposing party. They never recognized Clinton as legitimate. They stole the election in 2000. And now they're doing whatever it takes to deligitimize a president with a 60 percent approval rating, elected with 350 electoral votes and 52 percent of the popular vote. It's a dangerous precedent for democracy.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement