Remember, plainol, America is supposed to be the great melting pot. Would you be upset if we ever had an American Indian president? They were here first, after all.
On Jan 22, 1:43�am, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > The American public is bemused by the tasteless show-biz extravaganza > --- > ah yes, the Africanization of the Inauguration 2009 - a sight to see > I'm surprised he didn't have the Master Pimp Snoop Dog on the other > side of Denzel > They could've gangbanged Jesse Jackson. > > What's next? > - Hispanicification? > - Yiddification? > - Asianification? > > excuse me while I puke ... > > On Jan 21, 10:21�pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > *More Boos Than Balls* by Ann Coulter > > Posted 01/21/2009 ET > > Updated 01/21/2009 ET > > > It will not be easy for President B. Hussein Obama. More than half the > > country voted for him, and yet our newspapers are brimming with snippy > > remarks at every little aspect of his inauguration. > > > Here's a small sampling of the churlishness in just The New York *Times*: > > > *-- The American public is bemused by the tasteless show-biz extravaganza > > surrounding Barack Obama's inauguration today. > > > -- There is something to be said for some showiness in an inauguration. But > > one felt discomfited all the same. > > > -- This is an inauguration, not a coronation. > > > -- Is there a parallel between Mrs. Obama's jewel-toned outfit and somebody > > else's glass slippers? Why limousines and not shank's mare? > > > -- It is still unclear whether we are supposed to shout "Whoopee!" or > > "Shame!" about the new elegance the Obamas are bringing to Washington.* > > > Boy, talk about raining on somebody's parade! These were not, of course, > > comments about the inauguration of the angel Obama; they are (slightly > > edited) comments about the inauguration of another historic president, > > Ronald Reagan, in January 1981. > > > Obama's inaugural address tracked much of Reagan's first inaugural address > > -- minus the substance -- the main difference being that Obama did not > > invoke God as stoutly or frequently, restricting his heavenly references to > > a few liberal focus-grouped phrases, such as "God-given" and "God's grace." > > > Obama was also not as fulsome in his praise of his predecessor as Reagan > > was. To appreciate how remarkable this is, recall that Reagan's predecessor > > was Jimmy Carter. > > > Under Carter, more than 50 Americans were held hostage by a two-bit > > terrorist Iranian regime for 444 days -- released the day of Reagan's > > inauguration. Under Bush, there has not been another terrorist attack since > > Sept. 11, 2001. > > > But I gather that if Obama had uttered anything more than the briefest > > allusion to Bush, that would have provoked yet more booing from the > > Hope-and-Change crowd, which moments earlier had showered Bush with boos > > when he walked onto the stage. That must be the new tone we've been hearing > > so much about. > > > So maybe liberals can stop acting as if the entire nation could at last come > > together in a "unity of purpose" if only conservatives would stop fomenting > > "conflict and discord" -- as Obama suggested in his inaugural address. We're > > not the ones who booed a departing president. > > > It is a liberal trope to insult conservatives by asking them meaningless > > questions, such as the one repeatedly asked of Bush throughout his > > presidency about whether he had made any mistakes. All humans make mistakes > > -- what is the point of that question other than to give insult? > > > When will the first reporter ask President Obama to admit that he has made > > mistakes? Try: Never. > > > No, that question will disappear for the next four years. It will be > > replaced by the new question for conservatives on every liberal's lips these > > days: Do you want Obama to succeed as president? > > > Answer: Of course we do. We live here, too. > > > But merely to ask the question is to imply that the 60 million Americans who > > did not vote for Obama are being unpatriotic if they do not wholeheartedly > > endorse his liberal agenda. > > > I guess it depends on the meaning of "succeed." If Obama "succeeds" in > > pushing through big-government, terrorist-appeasing policies, he will not > > have "succeeded" at being a good president. If we didn't think conservative > > principles of small government and strong national defense weren't better > > for the country, we wouldn't be conservatives. > > > And why was that question never asked of liberals producing assassination > > books and movies about President Bush for the last eight years? > > > Say, did liberals want Pastor Rick Warren to succeed delivering a meaningful > > invocation at the inaugural? > > > The way I remember it, the Hope-and-Change crowd viciously denounced the > > Christian pastor, stamped their feet and demanded that Obama withdraw the > > invitation -- all because Rick Warren agrees with Obama's stated position on > > gay marriage, which also happens to be the position of a vast majority of > > Americans every time they have been allowed to vote on the matter. > > > Liberals always have to play the victim, acting as if they merely want to > > bring the nation together in hope and unity in the face of petulant, > > stick-in-the-mud conservatives. Meanwhile, they are the ones booing, > > heckling and publicly fantasizing about the assassination of those who > > disagree with them on policy matters. > > > Hope and unity, apparently, can only be achieved if conservatives would just > > go away -- and perhaps have the decency to kill themselves. > > > Republicans are not the ones who need to be told that "the time has come to > > set aside childish things" -- as Obama said of his own assumption of the > > presidency. Remember? We're the ones who managed to gaze upon Carter at the > > conclusion of his abomination of a presidency without booing. > > > �Ann And Da Rev. Al.jpg > > 47KViewDownload- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
